几个世纪以来，波卡洪塔斯一直吸引着我们的想象。她是印第安酋长的女儿，最终嫁给了一位英国船长，也是17世纪伦敦的热门人物。她的事迹被一代又一代人通过诗歌、艺术和故事来纪念。她和约翰·史密斯的故事在我们关于美国起源的叙事中占据着核心地位：她营救史密斯的故事或许是1607年至1608年英国詹姆斯敦殖民地历史上最广为人知的部分。2006年，在据称的营救事件400周年纪念日的前一年，关于波卡洪塔斯和约翰·史密斯的新书充斥着书店。你可以选择为儿童或成人、学者或休闲读者撰写的书籍。但即使过了四个世纪，这些新书对故事的讲述仍然莫衷一是。波卡洪塔斯和约翰·史密斯之间究竟发生了什么？

Pocahontas has captured our imaginations for centuries. Daughter of a great Indian chief, eventual bride of an English captain, and the talk of 17th-century London, she has been memorialized through poetry, art, and storytelling by generations. She and John Smith are lodged at the center of our stories about our country’s origins: Her rescue of Smith may be the best-known part of the history of the original English Jamestown colony of 1607 and 1608. In 2006, a year before the 400th anniversary of the supposed rescue, new volumes about Pocahontas and John Smith filled the bookstores. You could choose from books written for children or adults, scholars, or leisurely readers. But even after 4 centuries, these new books did not agree on the story to be told. What really happened between Pocahontas and John Smith?

华特迪士尼公司制作的版本，是许多学生最熟悉的版本。在1995年的电影中，我们了解到，身材苗条、自由奔放的19岁少女波卡洪塔斯和英俊潇洒的殖民者约翰·史密斯坠入爱河，他们不顾印第安人和殖民者之间禁止接触的禁令。在影片的高潮部分，波卡洪塔斯阻止了她的父亲、部落首领波瓦坦用棍棒将史密斯活活打死。她的勇气和同情心促使双方放下武器，开启了两个曾经交战的文化之间宽容的新时代。这是一个情节紧凑、充满戏剧性、浪漫爱情和道德教训的故事。但是，人、社会及其历史很少如此完美（更不用说如此动人且充满音乐性了）。这场营救真的发生过吗？

The Walt Disney Company is responsible for the version that many of our students know best. In the 1995 movie, we learned that Pocahontas, a svelte, free-spirited 19-year-old, and John Smith, a dashing hunk of a colonist, fell in love, flouting orders that there should be no contact between the Indians and colonists. In the movie’s dramatic climax, Pocahontas prevented Powhatan, her father and chief of the tribe, from cudgeling Smith to death. Her act of courage and compassion led to both sides laying down arms, and ushered in a new era of tolerance between two warring cultures. It is a tidy story, complete with drama, romance, and a moral lesson. But people, societies, and their histories are rarely this tidy (let alone so attractive and musical). Did this rescue really happen?

史学辩论

Historiographical Debate

阅读当代作品，你会发现并没有一个简单的答案。在记者大卫·普莱斯（David Price）的著作《詹姆斯敦的爱与恨：约翰·史密斯、波卡洪塔斯与新国家的心脏》（Love and Hate in Jamestown: John Smith, Pocahontas, and the Heart of a New Nation ）中，你会发现正如书名所示，这是一个关于史密斯和波卡洪塔斯的浪漫故事，波卡洪塔斯被这位年长的旅行者所吸引，并救他于危难之中。^普莱斯称这次营救（也是其中一章的标题）是“史密斯职业生涯中最著名也最具争议的旅程”，并断言证据表明营救确实发生过。^然而，他却将对争议的讨论放在了书的边角处，以免分散读者对主要故事的注意力。历史学家卡米拉·汤森德（Camilla Townsend）的著作《波卡洪塔斯与波瓦坦困境》（Pocahontas and the Powhatan Dilemma）在普莱斯的著作出版一年后问世，书中明确指出营救并未发生。³两位作者都认为波卡洪塔斯营救约翰·史密斯的故事存在争议，他们都使用了相同的历史证据来论证自己的观点，但最终却得出了截然相反的结论。我们面临一个历史难题：波卡洪塔斯是否真的救了约翰·史密斯？

Read contemporary works and you will not find a straightforward answer. In journalist David Price’s book, Love and Hate in Jamestown: John Smith, Pocahontas, and the Heart of a New Nation, you will find what the title suggests: a romantic tale of Smith and Pocahontas where she is attracted to the older traveler and saves him from death.¹ Price calls the rescue (a title of one chapter) the “most famous and controversial journey of Smith’s career” and asserts that the evidence indicates the rescue did happen.² He then relegates a discussion of the controversy to the margins of his book so it doesn’t divert the reader from his main story. Historian Camilla Townsend’s book, Pocahontas and the Powhatan Dilemma, published just a year after Price’s, unequivocally states that the rescue did not happen.³ Both authors agree that controversy surrounds the story of Pocahontas’s rescue of John Smith, both use the same historical evidence to make their case, but each comes to opposite conclusions. We have a historical problem: Did Pocahontas rescue John Smith?

这个救援故事并不新鲜。一代又一代的美国人从小就听过这个故事。那么，我们如何确定它是否真的发生过？如果它的真实性值得商榷，那么这个故事又是从何而来呢？

The story of the rescue is not new. Generations of Americans have grown up hearing it. So how do we know whether it happened? Where did the story come from if its authenticity is debatable?

答案来自约翰·史密斯本人。据称，唯一目睹该事件并留下书面记录的人是史密斯，但他对该事件的描述却漏洞百出。第一份记录写于1608年，也就是据称救援事件发生的年份，但其中并未提及……这段记载没有描述与波瓦坦会面的威胁或营救，而是使用了“友谊”和“仁慈”等词语来形容会面过程（参见资料1.1；所有资料均位于各章末尾）。“他热情地接待了我，说了许多好话，并准备了丰盛的各种食物，向我保证他的友谊，以及四天之内会释放我。” ^⁴另一方面，16年后写成的另一份记载则使用了“野蛮”和“可怕”等词语来描述与波瓦坦的会面，也是在这里，我们第一次听到了那句著名的说法：酋长的女儿波卡洪塔斯“用自己的头顶着他的头，救他于危难之中”（参见资料1.2）。⁵^这段文字全文如下：

The answer is, from John Smith himself. The only eyewitness to the supposed event who left a paper trail was Smith, but his accounts of the event are riddled with inconsistencies. The first, written in 1608, the year the rescue supposedly occurred, makes no mention of the threat or rescue, and uses words like “friendship” and “kindness” to describe meeting Powhatan (see Source 1.1; all Sources are located at the end of each chapter). “Hee kindly welcomed me with good wordes and great platters of sundrie Victuals, assuring mee his friendship, and my libertie within foure days.”⁴ On the other hand, another account, written 16 years afterward, uses words like “barbarous” and “fearful” to describe the meeting with Powhatan, and this is where we first hear the famous claim that the chief’s daughter, Pocahontas, “laid her owne [head] upon his to save him from death” (see Source 1.2).⁵ The entire passage reads:

^{为什么其中一篇记述提到了营救事件，而另一篇却没有？史密斯是否害怕，如果印第安女孩救他的真相曝光，他会因此被指责为不够男子气概？在第一篇记述中，他是否只是想描述这片新大陆和陌生的人民，而有意省略了个人经历？在第二篇记述中，他是否利用了波卡洪塔斯在1616年以印第安公主和约翰·罗尔夫妻子的身份前往伦敦后所获得的声望，从而将自己塑造成她早年生活中的人物，尽管她已经去世，无法回应？（波卡洪塔斯于1617年在返回弗吉尼亚的船上死于天花。）他的言辞是否意在将波卡洪塔斯描绘成一个特殊的人物，一个富有同情心、爱好和平的}印第安人，她皈依了基督教，与后来成为英国人死敌的其他波瓦坦人截然不同？

Why is the rescue mentioned in one account and not the other? Was Smith scared of being berated as less of a man if the truth about an Indian girl rescuing him came to light? Was he merely trying to describe this new land and unfamiliar peoples in the first account, choosing to omit personal stories? And in the second account, was he capitalizing on Pocahontas’s fame following her 1616 voyage to London as Indian princess and wife of John Rolfe, thus casting himself as a character in her early life now that she was dead and unable to respond? (Pocahontas succumbed to smallpox aboard a ship taking her back to Virginia in 1617.) Were his words designed to represent Pocahontas as exceptional, a sympathetic and peaceful Indian who converted to Christianity and differed radically from the rest of the Powhatan peoples who had become fierce enemies of the British in the intervening years?⁶

历史学家如何看待史密斯的两份叙述之间的差异？第一个公开质疑约翰·史密斯诚实度的历史学家是亨利·亚当斯，他是约翰·亚当斯总统的曾孙。亨利·亚当斯声称，鉴于史密斯最初的沉默以及两份叙述在语气和细节上的不一致（见资料1.3），任何有思考能力的人都不会相信史密斯的救援故事。⁷虽然亚当斯的论点合情合理，但他撰写这篇评论的年份——1867年——也颇具深意。后来的历史学家阅读了亚当斯的私人信件，发现他的怀疑带有政治动机：攻击弗吉尼亚州的骄傲——这位在殖民初期残酷岁月中拯救詹姆斯敦的英雄——实际上是对这个在内战中站在错误一方的州的攻击。而这并非史密斯救援故事最后一次被用来传递与事件本身几乎无关的信息。

What do historians make of the contrast between Smith’s two accounts? The first historian to publish an attack on John Smith’s honesty was Henry Adams, great-grandson of President John Adams. Henry Adams claimed that no thinking person could believe the rescue story, given both Smith’s initial silence and the inconsistencies in tone and detail between the two accounts (see Source 1.3).⁷ While Adams’s argument is reasonable, the year that he penned this critique, 1867, is also telling. Later historians would read Adams’s personal letters and find his skepticism politically motivated: attacking Virginia’s favorite son, a hero responsible for Jamestown’s survival in the early, brutal days of colonization, was in effect a swipe at this state that had been on the wrong side in the Civil War. It would not be the last time that the rescue story was used to send a message that had little to do with the event itself.

然而，亚当斯指出了这一历史问题，后来的历史学家们也一直在试图解决它。历史学家保罗·刘易斯在其著作《伟大的浪子：约翰·史密斯传》中，也认同亚当斯关于营救事件不太可能发生的观点（见^资料1.5）。他质疑史料的佐证，并就史密斯在不同叙述中所谓的夸张和矛盾之处提出质疑。刘易斯指出，史密斯的营救故事首次出现时，波卡洪塔斯正成为《伦敦公报》的宠儿，并受到皇室的密切关注。

Nevertheless, Adams surfaced the historical problem and later historians would continue to try to solve it. Historian Paul Lewis, in The Great Rogue: A Biography of John Smith, agreed with Adams about the improbability of a rescue (see Source 1.5).⁸ He asked questions about corroborating sources and challenged Smith on what he claimed were embellishments and inconsistencies within his separate accounts. Lewis pointed out that Smith’s rescue story first appeared just as Pocahontas was becoming the darling of the London Gazette and basking in royal attention.

其他历史学家虽然相信史密斯的说法，但即便承认此事可能确实发生过，也认为史密斯误解了事件的本质。学者J.A. Leo Lemay在《约翰·史密斯船长的美国梦》一书中指出，史密斯是一位值得信赖的作者，他出于不同的目的撰写了不同的记述：第一篇记述是为了描述新大陆，第二篇记述则是为了推动殖民化（见资料1.4）。 ⁹ Lemay还引用了另一份原始证据来佐证自己的观点：史密斯于1616年写给安妮女王的一封信，信中描述了这次营救行动。Lemay认为，事件的确发生过，但史密斯误解了它的意义：与其说这是一次营救，不如说是一场精心设计的土著仪式。历史学家Philip Barbour对此表示赞同，他认为这实际上是一场象征死亡与重生的美洲原住民仪式，象征着史密斯在波瓦坦酋长的庇护下获得了新的部落身份（见资料1.6）。 ¹⁰ 显然，某件事发生了，但事件的核心人物误解了它的意义。

Other historians took Smith at his word but, even while accepting that this event may have happened, claimed that Smith missed the point. Scholar J. A. Leo Lemay in The American Dream of Captain John Smith argued that Smith was a trustworthy author who wrote different accounts for different purposes: to describe the new land in the first account, to promote colonization of it in the second (see Source 1.4).⁹ Lemay included another piece of primary evidence to make his case: a letter Smith wrote to Queen Anne in 1616 describing the rescue. Lemay claimed that there was no doubt that the event happened, but that Smith misunderstood its meaning: It was less a rescue than an elaborate native ritual. Historian Philip Barbour agreed, claiming that the event was actually a Native American rite meant to signify death and rebirth, symbolizing Smith’s assumption of a new tribal identity under Powhatan’s patronage (see Source 1.6).¹⁰ Something obviously happened, but its import was misunderstood by the actor at its center.

为了全面了解情况，我们需要弄清楚故事的真相究竟是什么？这些真相又意味着什么？虽然这些问题没有简单的答案，但提出这些问题正是“像历史学家一样阅读”方法的核心所在。

To take stock, what exactly are the facts of the story? What do these facts mean? While there are no easy answers to these questions, asking them puts us at the heart of the Reading Like a Historian approach.

波卡洪塔斯和约翰·史密斯是美国神话的化身。一位冒险家在400年前的记载中，仅用一个段落就谱写了一段故事，而这位冒险家被同时代的人称为“野心勃勃、不值得尊重、自负虚荣” ^¹¹，这段故事至今仍令美国人津津乐道。我们通常从史密斯营救波卡洪塔斯——这位美国最受欢迎的印第安公主——的故事开始讲述她的故事。这一事件展现了她在面对邪恶势力时的勇敢和独立。事实上，我们对这些历史人物以及营救故事的描述本身也成为了值得研究的对象，因为它们反映了他们被创造的历史时代和地域背景^。¹²

Pocahontas and John Smith are the stuff of American myth. A single paragraph in a 400-year-old account written by an adventurer whom one contemporary called “ambityous unworthy and vaynglorious”¹¹ spawned a story of which Americans never tire. Our story of Pocahontas, America’s favorite Indian princess, usually starts with Smith’s rescue, an event that shows her bravery and independence when faced with an evil deed. In fact, the representations we have of these historical figures and of the rescue story have become legitimate objects of study themselves, as they reflect the historical time and place in which they were created.¹²

亨利·亚当斯和迪士尼公司并非唯一利用这个故事为自己谋利的作者。不妨看看约翰·查普曼的画作《波卡洪塔斯在弗吉尼亚州詹姆斯敦的洗礼》，这幅画作于1840年悬挂在国会大厦圆形大厅，比记者约翰·奥沙利文提出“昭昭天命”一词早几年。西进运动势头正盛。这幅画美化了波卡洪塔斯皈依基督教的历程，暗示将基督教带给印第安人是一项现实而崇高的事业（即便如画中所描绘的那样，一些脾气暴躁、心怀不轨的印第安人拒绝了它）。不妨换个角度，看看亚马逊网站上那些以波卡洪塔斯的名字命名的、用钻石和珍珠制成的昂贵珠宝吧。

Henry Adams and the Disney Company are not the only authors to narrate this story to their advantage. Consider John Chapman’s painting, Baptism of Pocahontas at Jamestown, Virginia, hung in the Capitol Rotunda in 1840 a few years before journalist John O’Sullivan coined the term “manifest destiny,” and the work of westward conquest was gaining steam. The painting glorifies Pocahontas’s conversion to Christianity, suggesting that bringing Christianity to the Indians is a realistic and noble endeavor (even if, as depicted in the painting, some surly, bad Indians rejected it). Consider, on a more frivolous note, the costly jewelry made of diamonds and pearls that bears Pocahontas’s name available at Amazon.com.

对波卡洪塔斯及其获救故事的神话化，对于理解和还原历史真相究竟有何意义？人类学家海伦·朗特里和历史学家卡米拉·汤森等学者认为，这种神话化模糊并狭隘了我们对这段历史的认知。 ¹³聚焦于浪漫的印第安公主和英国船长之间引人入胜的形象，掩盖了英国人与波瓦坦人之间更宏大的交往史，以及随着殖民者逐渐将切萨皮克湾地区作为永久家园，这两个族群之间关系的演变。波卡洪塔斯的故事被简化成童话故事，如同简明扼要的史料，导致学生们错失了了解这段历史及其相关族群的重要信息。

And what has the mythologizing of Pocahontas and the rescue story meant for understanding and capturing what really happened? Scholars like anthropologist Helen Rountree and historian Camilla Townsend argue that it has obscured and narrowed our vision of this past.¹³ Focusing on an appealing picture of a romantic Indian princess and British captain has blotted out larger stories of British/Powhatan encounters and the groups’ evolving relationship as the colonists began to make the Chesapeake their permanent home. Pocahontas’s story, reduced to a fairytale, CliffsNotes form, leads students to miss out on learning significant things about this encounter and the peoples involved in it.

由于我们无法获得波卡洪塔斯的亲口讲述，我们对整个故事仍然知之甚少。事实上，我们所有的书面资料都出自英国人之手，我们根本无法听到波卡洪塔斯族人未经任何中介的叙述。虽然史密斯、威廉·斯特雷奇等人留下了关于切萨皮克印第安人的详尽描述，但他们的记述必然带有作者自身的文化和个人视角。历史学家必须仔细研读这些文字资料。汤森德告诉读者，她从史密斯的记述中提炼出事件的具体细节，“将每一句话置于其写作的语境中，并将其与佐证或否定性的外部证据进行对比”——这本质上是历史学家最擅长的工作：将文本置于特定的语境中，并加以佐证，从而理解文本所揭示的历史真相。¹⁴汤森对“英国人所知道的”的明确论述，有力地表明，我们需要了解史密斯的同代人和同胞如何看待和描述印第安人和殖民化，才能理解这一事件和史密斯的竞争性叙述。

The fact that we do not have access to Pocahontas’s words leaves us with a deafening silence about the complete story. In fact, all our written sources were composed by British men, and we have no access to the unmediated voices of Pocahontas’s people. While Smith, William Strachey, and others left lengthy descriptions of the Indians of the Chesapeake, their accounts are necessarily filtered through the authors’ cultural and personal prisms. Historians must read this written evidence closely. Townsend tells her readers that she culled the specifics of the event from reading Smith’s accounts and “placing each statement in the context in which it was written and juxtaposing it against confirming or damning external evidence”—essentially doing what historians do best, contextualizing and corroborating text to understand what it tells us about the past.¹⁴ Townsend’s explicit treatment of “what the English knew” firmly establishes that we need to know how Smith’s contemporaries and compatriots viewed and portrayed Indians and colonization to understand this event and Smith’s rival accounts.

同样，了解切萨皮克印第安人的社会——他们的日常生活、仪式和居住环境——有助于我们理解这一事件及其发生的背景。考古学家和人类学家为构建这方面的知识做出了贡献。为了记录波瓦坦酋长国的疆域和发展，以及不同印第安部落和村落之间的关系，E·兰道夫·特纳参考了考古和地理数据，以补充英国的记载。^他和一些学者分析了出土陶器及其位置之间的差异和一致性，以及铜器和贝壳制品等现存的贸易商品。围绕印第安人定居点的防御性悬崖遗迹也增进了我们对切萨皮克各部落之间关系的了解。这些学者利用现有证据，重构了印第安人对此次遭遇的可能看法。

Similarly, knowing about the Chesapeake Indians’ societies—their routines, rituals, and residences—sheds light on this event and the context in which it occurred. Archeologists and anthropologists have helped in building this knowledge. To document the scope and growth of Powhatan’s chiefdom and relations between different Indian tribes and villages, E. Randolph Turner looked to archeological and geographical data to complement the English accounts.¹⁵ He and others analyzed variations and consistencies between unearthed ceramics and their locations, as well as surviving trade goods like copper and sea shell artifacts. Evidence of defensive cliffs surrounding Indian settlements contributes to what we know about how the tribes of the Chesapeake got along. These scholars use the evidence available to them to reconstruct possible Indian perspectives on the encounter.

这在多大程度上弥补了早期殖民活动中那些最受牵连的民族的沉默？目前尚不清楚，但对约翰·史密斯/波卡洪塔斯相遇的世界进行更全面的了解，无疑有助于我们理解哪些是可能的，哪些是不可能的。与此同时，新的信息正在不断涌现。2003年，在弗吉尼亚州格洛斯特县发现了一处遗址，被认定为韦罗沃科莫科村，也就是当年营救事件发生的地点。考古学家们欣喜地发现了比英国人早150多年的沟渠，这一发现表明村落内部存在世俗空间和神圣空间的分离。更薄、更易碎的陶器碎片是神圣空间的标志；学者们推测，这里可能是波瓦坦的住所。^考古学家们仍在继续挖掘该遗址，以期获得更多线索，从而更好地了解这个没有留下任何文字记录的民族。

How much does this compensate for the silence of the peoples most embroiled in these early colonization efforts? It’s not clear, but surely a more complete picture of the world of the John Smith/Pocahontas encounter contributes to understanding what is and isn’t likely. Meanwhile, new information is being uncovered. In 2003, a site determined to be Werowocomoco, the village where the rescue would have happened, was discovered in Gloucester County, Virginia. Archeologists thrilled in discovering ditches predating the English by more than 150 years, a find that suggested a separation of secular and sacred spaces within the village. Thinner, more fragile pottery shards distinguish the sacred space; scholars have speculated that it may have been Powhatan’s living quarters.¹⁶ Archeologists continue to excavate that site for more clues to understanding this people who left no written record.

首先，学者们已经证明，波瓦坦人并非孤立的部落，而是切萨皮克湾地区庞大部落网络的一部分。由于语言和生活方式的共通，他们属于阿尔冈昆语系印第安人。波瓦坦酋长领导着一个类似于部落联盟的组织。这个联盟覆盖了弗吉尼亚州潮水区超过6000平方英里的区域，在他的领导下发展到30多个部落，人口超过12000人。每个部落都向波瓦坦纳贡，并拥有一位效忠于联盟和波瓦坦的酋长（或称“韦罗万斯”）。各部落可能通过战争、结盟和部落间通婚等方式加入这个联盟。

First, scholars have shown that the Powhatan were not an isolated or loner tribe, but part of an extensive intertribal network on the Chesapeake. Part of the Indian group called the Algonquian by virtue of a shared language and way of life, Chief Powhatan led something akin to a tribal federation. The federation extended more than 6,000 square miles in the Tidewater area of Virginia and grew to more than 30 tribes and 12,000 people under his leadership. Each of these tribes paid tribute to Powhatan and had a chief, or werowance, loyal to the federation and Powhatan. Tribes probably joined the federation through war, alliances, and intertribal marriage.

此外，当英国人抵达詹姆斯敦时，波卡洪塔斯的父亲并非外交或族群间关系领域的新手：他当时已是统领多个族群的强大领袖。汤森称他为“杰出的战略家” ^¹⁷，因为他在其领域内外交手腕高明且卓有成效；而巴伯则用“专制”一词来形容他的统治方式^¹⁸ 。英国人带着他们外来但实用的工具、大型船只和独特的行事方式，对波瓦坦来说也并非陌生。西班牙人早已到过该地区，并与印第安人发生过冲突：这并非欧洲人第一次踏足这片土地。

Further, Pocahontas’s father was not new to the world of diplomacy or intergroup relations when the English arrived in Jamestown: He was already a powerful leader of diverse groups. Skilled and successful at diplomacy in his world, Townsend calls him “a brilliant strategist”¹⁷ while Barbour uses the word “despotism” to describe his governance.¹⁸ Nor were the British, with their foreign but useful tools, their big ships and strange ways, new to Powhatan. The Spanish had already been to the region and skirmished with the Indians: This was not the first time Europeans had arrived in their midst.

英国殖民者了解西班牙早期的殖民活动，这影响了他们的计划和策略。当“苏珊·康斯坦特号”、“发现号”和“神速号”抵达时，船上的乘客就计划在此建立殖民地，事实上，他们也意识到这片区域存在权力真空，并希望填补这一空白。但英国人并未与当地居民达成共识，他们在建立高效自给自足的定居点方面表现不佳，这或许有助于他们掩盖自己只是临时访客的身份。然而，这也导致了如今臭名昭著的“饥荒时期”。在定居点建立的第一个冬天，约翰·史密斯船长开始溯河而上，用工具和珠子换取玉米，以拯救他的同胞免于饥荒。饥饿难耐。在他沿奇卡霍米尼河逆流而上最远的一次行程中，他被波瓦坦的兄弟奥佩坎卡诺俘虏，并被押送到各个村庄。12月下旬，史密斯被带到距离詹姆斯敦12英里的韦罗沃科莫科，觐见波瓦坦。这里是营救故事的发生地，也是波卡洪塔斯故事的开端。

The British colonizers knew of the earlier Spanish efforts, and this influenced their plans and approach. When the Susan Constant, Discovery, and Godspeed arrived, the passengers had designs on colonizing the area, and in fact knew the region as a power vacuum that they hoped to fill. But the British didn’t share this view with the natives, and their ineptness and trouble with creating a productive and self-sustaining settlement may have helped their cover story of being temporary visitors. However, it also led to what is now infamously known as “the starving times,” and in the first winter of the settlement, Captain John Smith started making voyages upriver to trade tools and beads for corn to save his compatriots from starvation. In his furthest trip up the Chickahominy River, he was captured by Opechancanough, Powhatan’s brother, and taken from village to village. In late December Smith was brought before Powhatan at Werowocomoco, 12 miles from Jamestown. This is the site of the rescue story and where the story of Pocahontas begins.

鉴于波卡洪塔斯作为一位具有多重象征意义的人物，我们对她的了解之少令人惊讶。波瓦坦之女，母亲不详，大约九、十岁时，她第一次在村子里见到被俘的约翰·史密斯——据说就是在那时，史密斯获救了。第二年，波卡洪塔斯频繁造访詹姆斯敦。她带来了殖民地所需的物资，史密斯认为她促成了一些印第安人质的安全返回。她为殖民者和印第安人翻译，汤森推测，史密斯记录的唯一一段完整的阿尔冈昆语句子可能就出自她之手。虽然我们不清楚她每次来访的具体目的，但每次似乎都友好而乐于助人。然而，不到一年，她就停止了对殖民地的访问，只有一份记载称她嫁给了一位名叫科库姆的印第安人。

Given her status as icon serving multiple purposes, it is striking how little verifiable knowledge about Pocahontas we actually have. The daughter of Powhatan and an unknown mother was about 9 or 10 years old when she would have first seen the captive John Smith in her village—and when the supposed rescue happened. In the following year, Pocahontas was a frequent visitor to Jamestown. She brought the settlement provisions and was credited by Smith with being responsible for the safe return of some Indian hostages. She translated for the colonists and Indians, and Townsend conjectures that she may be responsible for the sole surviving Algonquian complete sentence recorded by Smith. While the exact nature of her visits is unknown, they seem to be friendly and helpful. However, before the year was up, she stopped visiting the colony and there is a single report that she married an Indian named Kocoom.

直到1613年，她才再次出现在英国的记载中，当时她被一位精明的英国人塞缪尔·阿加尔船长绑架。在此期间，史密斯因火药伤返回英国，印第安人和殖民者之间的敌对行动也愈演愈烈。阿加尔听说波瓦坦的女儿就在他船附近，便抓住机会利用这位印第安公主为英国谋利。一个名叫帕托沃梅克的部落成员帮助将波卡洪塔斯引诱到阿加尔的船上，在那里她被俘虏并被索要赎金。波瓦坦三个月来一直拒绝赎金要求，之后才部分支付。获释后，波卡洪塔斯在詹姆斯敦度过了一段动荡不安的时光，不到一年，她就皈依了基督教，并结识了约翰·罗尔夫，两人结婚。1615年，他们生下了一个儿子，托马斯·罗尔夫。第二年，他们启程返回英国。在那里，波卡洪塔斯被视为印第安公主，并受到詹姆斯一世国王和安妮女王的接见。也是在这一时期，西蒙·范·德·帕斯为她创作了现存唯一一幅肖像画，这幅版画现藏于史密森尼博物馆。1617年春天，波卡洪塔斯一家启程返回弗吉尼亚，但她在离开英国之前便因病去世，年仅19或20岁。

She did not appear again in British accounts until she was kidnapped in 1613 by an enterprising Englishman, Captain Samuel Argall. In the intervening years, Smith had returned to England with a gunpowder injury, and hostilities between the Indians and the colonists had accelerated. Hearing that Powhatan’s daughter was near his ship, Argall seized the opportunity to use the Indian princess to British advantage. A member of a federation tribe, Patowomeck, helped lure Pocahontas aboard Argall’s ship, where she was captured and held for ransom. For 3 months, Powhatan didn’t respond to the ransom demands and then partially met them. Upon her release, Pocahontas stayed in Jamestown, under uncertain conditions, and within a year had converted to Christianity and met and married John Rolfe. In 1615, the two had a son, Thomas Rolfe, and the following year, they set sail for England. There, Pocahontas was regarded as an Indian princess and received at the court of King James I and Queen Anne. This is also when Simon Van de Passe produced the only existing portrait of her, an engraving that now hangs in the Smithsonian. Pocahontas’s family set sail for their return to Virginia in the spring of 1617, but she fell ill and died before they cleared England. She would have been 19 or 20 years old.

如今，波卡洪塔斯是美国民众心中浪漫而又广受欢迎的历史人物，而她获救的故事也塑造了我们对她的认知。然而，我们所熟知的关于这次营救的普遍说法，或许更多的是神话而非史实。历史学家和学者们仍在努力探寻神话背后的真相，力求还原事件的全貌。近几十年来，人们开始更加关注理解和融入与此事件相关的印第安人视角和文化现实。巴伯、勒梅、朗特里和汤森德等学者都对此有所关注，但即便如此，他们对事件的解读仍然存在分歧。疑问依然存在。是否有证据表明波瓦坦部落曾进行过巴伯所提出的那种仪式性的重生？如果我们只关注营救本身，是否会忽略波卡洪塔斯真正的历史意义——她作为一位文化斡旋者，与英国人的交往以及最终与罗尔夫的婚姻，与其说是出于爱情，不如说是出于外交考量？考虑到她在当时的事件中只是一个次要人物，我们对她的关注是否有些误导和夸大？为什么在英国殖民切萨皮克地区的美国历史中，波卡洪塔斯获救的故事会盖过其他一切？如今，我们讲述的关于波卡洪塔斯和她获救的故事已经脱离了任何历史证据，拥有了独立的生命力。海伦·朗特里对波卡洪塔斯的故事又增添了一个新的解读。

Pocahontas is a romantic and popular historical figure for Americans today, and the rescue is what frames our perception of her. However, the common story that we know about this rescue may be more myth than history. Historians and scholars still debate the truth beyond the myth while pursuing an accurate telling of the story. In recent decades, new attention has been paid to understanding and incorporating Indian perspectives and cultural realities relevant to the event. Barbour, Lemay, Rountree, and Townsend—all of these scholars are attentive to this, but even so, they differ in their interpretations of the event. Questions persist. Is there evidence to convince us that Powhatan’s tribe engaged in the kinds of ritual rebirths suggested by Barbour? And if we focus on the rescue, do we miss out on the true historical significance of Pocahontas—as a cultural broker whose interactions with the British, and eventual marriage to Rolfe, were more about diplomacy than affection? Is our focus on her misguided and overblown, given that she was a minor character in the events of the time? How did the rescue story eclipse all else in the American story of the British colonization of the Chesapeake region? At this point, the stories that we tell about Pocahontas and the rescue have taken on a life of their own, separate from any historical evidence. Helen Rountree adds still another twist on what Pocahontas teaches us.

关于波卡洪塔斯和约翰·史密斯的文献和学术研究浩如烟海，引人入胜。从巴伯引人入胜的叙述和勒梅细致入微且令人信服的分析，到朗特里的民族历史学方法和蒂尔顿对神话形成过程的详尽描述，这个故事背后的真相值得探究。更重要的是，约翰·史密斯“获救”的故事暴露了历史的薄弱之处，并向我们表明，许多美国人奉为事实的那些事，实际上仅仅依赖于一个（略显可疑的）来源。当我们把这个来源与同一作者的其他文献进行比较时，疑问便会接踵而至。真正的历史在于提出问题，这使得波卡洪塔斯/约翰·史密斯的故事成为引导学生入门历史探究的理想案例。

The literature and scholarship concerning Pocahontas and John Smith are extensive and lively. From Barbour’s compelling story and Lemay’s careful and persuasive analysis to Rountree’s ethnohistorical approach and Tilton’s detailed telling of the making of a myth, the truth behind this story is worth investigating. More important, the story of John Smith’s “rescue” lays bare history’s weak points and shows us that what so many Americans have taken as fact relies, in fact, on a single (somewhat dubious) source. And when we compare this source to other documents from the same author, questions multiply. Genuine history is about asking questions, which makes the Pocahontas/John Smith story the ideal candidate for initiating our students into the art of historical detection.

为什么要教授约翰·史密斯和波卡洪塔斯的故事？

Why Teach About John Smith and Pocahontas?

一个易于处理的历史问题，可以作为课程的开篇。波卡洪塔斯/约翰·史密斯营救事件是一个引人入胜的历史思维教学切入点。虽然关于这一事件的诠释性研究层出不穷，但实际的文献记录却出奇地匮乏。这意味着，只需几节课的时间，你的学生就能接触到引发这场争论的主要史料。通过阅读约翰·史密斯的著作，学生们可以更好地理解这一事件。史密斯的两种截然不同的说法，立刻将学生们推入争议的中心，让他们面对一个难以解决的历史难题。在评估了事件背后的原始文献之后，学生们可以重新审视教科书中的叙述，并以全新的视角看待它：“这件事是否真的发生过都无法确定，他们怎么能如此笃定地写下来呢？！”

A Manageable Historical Problem to Start Your Course. The Pocahontas/John Smith rescue story is a compelling way to start teaching for historical thinking. While there is no shortage of interpretive work that has been done on the event, the actual documentary record is surprisingly thin. Essentially what this means is that over a few class periods, your students can encounter the main sources that fuel this debate. By reading John Smith’s two conflicting accounts, students are immediately thrust into the center of the controversy and confronted with a historical problem that is not easily solved. Having evaluated the primary documents behind this event, students can return to their textbook’s narrative and look at it through new eyes: “How can they write something with such certainty when it’s not even clear that it happened?!”

将历史呈现为一系列待探究的问题，而非一系列需要记忆的故事，对学生而言或许是一种全新的体验。约翰·史密斯/波卡洪塔斯之谜的早期殖民背景意味着，从课程伊始，学生就能以一种不同于以往的方式体验历史。识别并解决一个历史问题，其中包含引导性问题、各种相互矛盾的史料，以及没有唯一正确答案，这挑战了学生对历史是静态的、思考仅仅是记住大量史料的固有观念。尽管波卡洪塔斯是否真的救了约翰·史密斯这个问题在课程范围内看似无关紧要，但其局限性却蕴含着诸多教学优势。学生能够体验历史探究的关键要素，并拥有丰富的历史思考机会，同时又不会被浩瀚的史料所淹没。对于初学者而言，无需查阅大量文献，也能更容易地理解复杂的问题。

History presented as a series of problems to be explored, rather than a set of stories to be committed to memory, may be a new experience for your students. The early colonial setting of the John Smith/Pocahontas problem means that from the beginning of your course, students can encounter history as a different enterprise than what many of them expect. Identifying and working through a historical problem, complete with guiding questions, varied and contradictory sources, and no single right answer challenges students’ ideas that history is static, where the only thinking involved is figuring out how so much material can be memorized. While the narrow question of whether Pocahontas actually rescued John Smith may seem expendable given the curricular terrain, the question’s limited scope offers many instructional advantages. Students experience key facets of historical investigation with rich opportunities to think historically, but they are not overwhelmed by the historical record. Complex questions are easier for novices to grasp without dozens of documents.

原始资料总是“原始的”吗？事实上，探究波卡洪塔斯/约翰·史密斯的故事为培养学生的历史理解能力提供了多种途径。史密斯叙述中的矛盾之处挑战了学生对第一手资料或原始记录的固有观念——即它们永远是理解过去最可靠的来源。学生常常将原始资料奉为历史真相的反映，而忽视了对其进行质疑的必要性。但在这里，原始资料彼此矛盾，而这些矛盾无法通过引用不同作者的不同观点来解决。为什么同一个来源——约翰·史密斯——会有不同的说法？研究二手历史解读能够让学生接触到更复杂的问题，并挑战那种认为原始资料比现代历史学家的解读更有价值这种简单化的观念。过去几个世纪的研究为史密斯对波瓦坦人（可惜的是，他们没有留下任何文字记录）的解读提供了其他解释。

Are Primary Sources Always “Primary”? Indeed, investigating the Pocahontas/John Smith story offers multiple avenues to developing students’ historical understanding. The contrast in Smith’s stories challenges students’ ideas about first-hand or primary accounts—that is, that they are always the most reliable source for understanding the past. Often students privilege primary sources as reflections of historical truth and don’t recognize the need to interrogate them. But here, the primary sources contradict one another, and these contradictions cannot be resolved by appealing to different writers with different perspectives. Why does the same source, John Smith, say different things? Working with the secondary historical interpretations introduces students to more complexity and challenges the simplistic notion that primary sources teach us more than the interpretations of modern-day historians. Scholarship done over the past few centuries provides alternative explanations to Smith’s for what this event may have meant to the Powhatan, who, alas, left no written records of their own.

从已知入手。最后，主题的熟悉度是另一个巨大的优势。几乎没有学生没听说过波卡洪塔斯，或者背不出约翰·史密斯和波卡洪塔斯故事的某个版本。这种熟悉度意味着学生很可能对这个主题和问题感兴趣，并且会惊讶于历史学家们至今仍在争论这个问题。当研究者选择学生已经熟悉的主题时，处理相互矛盾的史料就更容易了。一旦学生意识到他们所听到的故事可能更多的是神话而非历史，关于我们如何了解过去的疑问就有了新的意义。历史不再是枯燥乏味的史实罗列，而是邀请他们参与一场关于证据和论证的热烈辩论。

Starting with the Known. Finally, the topic’s familiarity is another big advantage. It is the rare student who hasn’t heard of Pocahontas or who cannot recite some version of the John Smith/Pocahontas story. This familiarity means that students are likely to be interested in the topic and problem, and be surprised by the fact that historians are still arguing about it. It is easier to work with contradictory sources when they take up a topic that students already know. Once students realize that the story they’ve been told may be more myth than history, questions about how we know the past take on new meaning. Instead of a numbing list of facts, history becomes an invitation to join a raucous debate about evidence and argument.

你会如何使用这些材料？

How Might You Use These Materials?

情景一（1-2小时课程）：波卡洪塔斯是否救了约翰·史密斯？利用这些资料和工具，引导学生阅读和分析多份记载，并就救援的可能性提出基于证据的论点。

Scenario 1 (1–2 Hour Lesson). Did Pocahontas rescue John Smith? Use these sources and tools to engage students in reading and analyzing multiple accounts to create an evidence-based argument about the likelihood of the rescue.

首先询问学生对波卡洪塔斯和约翰·史密斯的了解。引导学生了解这些人物及其所处时代，以及他们从哪里了解到这些信息。一些学生可能会提到1995年迪士尼出品的电影《风中奇缘》。播放迪士尼版本的营救片段（DVD第25章，或电影大约1分09秒处）。利用时间轴（工具1.1；所有工具均位于章节末尾）以及你之前关于美洲探险和殖民化的相关资料，简要介绍与该事件相关的背景，然后提出本课的引导性问题：波卡洪塔斯是否救了约翰·史密斯？在接下来的几轮中，让学生两人一组，使用相应的文档和练习题来帮助他们回答这个问题。每轮文档使用完毕后，组织全班讨论。在讨论中，再次提及引导性问题，并引导学生用文档中的证据来论证他们的答案。注意倾听学生提出的问题，以此强调历史挖掘往往会引出更多的问题。

Start off by asking students what they know about Pocahontas and John Smith. Elicit what students know about these individuals and their time, and where they learned it. Some will cite the 1995 Disney Pocahontas film. Show the Disney version of the rescue (Chapter 25 of the DVD, or approximately 1:09 into the movie). Use the timeline (Tool 1.1; all Tools are located at the end of chapters) along with any work you have done on the exploration and colonization of the Americas to briefly establish relevant background to the alleged event, then introduce the lesson’s guiding question: Did Pocahontas rescue John Smith? In successive rounds, have pairs of students work with document sets and accompanying worksheets to help them answer this question. After each round of documents, lead a whole-class discussion. In this discussion, revisit the guiding question and prompt students to defend their answers with evidence from the documents. Listen for questions that students have generated to highlight how historical digging often leads to more questions.

在第一轮中，学生们使用史密斯的记述及其配套工具（资料1.1和1.2，工具1.2）。在他们学习的过程中，注意观察学生是否意识到史密斯在两份资料中讲述了截然不同的故事。他们能否找出体现这种差异的词句和细节？在第二轮中，学生们使用两位历史学家的记述及其配套工具（资料1.3、1.4，工具1.3）。同样，注意观察学生是否注意到这些记述之间的差异。在可选的第三轮中，学生们使用最后两位历史学家的记述及其配套工具（资料1.5、1.6，工具1.4 ）。在整个课程中，“波卡洪塔斯是否救了约翰·史密斯”这个问题将引导学生的学习和课堂讨论。最后，学生们需要根据所参考的资料，运用证据（例如，直接引语、细节和具体事例）来回答这个问题。支持他们的论点。你可以在布置写作作业之前，先回顾一下迪士尼电影，并让学生探讨历史资料如何挑战这部广为人知的动画版本。使用工具 1.5来组织这项作业。

In the first round, students work with Smith’s accounts and accompanying tools (Sources 1.1 and 1.2, Tool 1.2). As they work, listen to whether students recognize that Smith tells contrasting stories in the two sources. Can they identify phrases and details that exemplify this difference? In the second round, students work with two historians’ accounts and accompanying tools (Source 1.3, 1.4, Tool 1.3). Again, pay attention to whether students note differences between these accounts. In the optional third round, students tackle the final two historians’ accounts and tools (Source 1.5, 1.6, Tool 1.4). Throughout the entire lesson, the question of whether Pocahontas rescued John Smith guides student work and class discussion. Finally, students write an answer to the question with the requirement that they use evidence (e.g., direct quotes, details, and specifics) from the documents to support their argument. You may want to preface the writing assignment by revisiting the Disney movie and asking students to address how the historical sources challenge the well-known animated version of the event. Use Tool 1.5 to structure this assignment.

情景二（2-3小时课程）。历史究竟是什么？利用这些资源和工具，向学生明确阐述历史探究的一些核心特征、材料和词汇。

Scenario 2 (2–3 Hour Lesson). What is history anyway? Use these sources and tools to make explicit for your students some core features, materials, and vocabulary of historical investigation.

参照情景一，开始在课程中融入关于历史本质的直接教学。这种补充教学最好在学生完成文献分析环节之后、撰写最终论文之前进行，当然也可以在每个步骤之后进行。

Replicating Scenario 1, begin to integrate direct instruction about the nature of history into your lessons. This additional instruction works best after students have completed the document analysis rounds but before they write their final essay, although it may be integrated after each step.

您可以向学生讲解文献集1和文献集2的区别，即二手文献和一手文献。您可以解释“文献”、“证据”和“解释”的定义。您可以回顾学生如何深入理解本课的指导性问题，包括阅读、分析和综合多种叙述；用证据支持论点；以及向文献和自身提出问题，以明确他们还想知道什么或他们确实不知道什么。指出历史学家会探究发生了什么以及这件事的意义。并帮助学生认识到，历史研究是一个循环往复的过程，需要不断地用现有证据检验各种说法，而且并非总能找到绝对的答案。

You might teach your students about the difference between Document Sets 1 and 2, i.e., secondary and primary sources. You could define “source,” “evidence,” and “interpretation.” You can review the students’ process of getting smarter about this lesson’s guiding question, which included reading, analyzing, and synthesizing the multiple accounts; backing up assertions with evidence; and asking questions of the sources and of themselves to pinpoint what else they would like to know or what they indeed don’t know. Point out that historians ask questions about what happened and what it meant. And help students recognize that historical investigation is a recursive process, where one has to continually check claims against the available evidence, and absolute answers are not always possible.

为了检验学生的理解程度，他们可以像情景 1 中那样用书面形式回答问题。或者，他们也可以回答以下问题：为什么我们不能确定波卡洪塔斯是否救了约翰·史密斯？请至少写下三个原因。

To check for understanding, students can answer the question in writing as they do in Scenario 1. Alternatively, they can address the following question: Why can’t we know for certain whether Pocahontas rescued John Smith? Write down a minimum of three reasons.

• 针对每个理由，至少写出两个具体细节或引语来支持该理由。
• For each reason write at least two specific details or quotes that support that reason.
• 至少在两处使用不同的信息来源来论证你的观点。
• Compare sources to make your point in at least two instances.

学生的回答可以采用段落、文章、访谈节目或图表等多种形式。这个问题旨在引导学生思考“做历史”的意义，以及历史文本在历史诠释中的作用。

Students’ responses could take the form of a paragraph, essay, talk show interview, or graphic organizer, among other possibilities. This question prompts students to think about what it means to “do” history and the role of historical texts in developing historical interpretations.

情景三（2-3小时课程）：神话还是历史，二者有何区别？运用这些资料和工具，明确阐述重构历史的证据本质，以及这与神话创造之间的区别。

Scenario 3 (2–3 Hour Lesson). Myth or history, what’s the difference? Use these sources and tools to make explicit the evidentiary nature of reconstructing the past and how this contrasts with myth-making.

学生们参与情景一中描述的阅读和讨论环节，体验历史学家如何分析和综合多种史料以构建连贯的论点。然而，在这个情景中，学生们随后将分析神话的构建实例，包括迪士尼电影和约翰·查普曼于1840年创作的、悬挂在国会大厦圆形大厅的波卡洪塔斯画像。

Students participate in the reading and discussion rounds described in Scenario 1, experiencing how historians must analyze and synthesize multiple accounts to create coherent arguments. However, in this scenario, students subsequently analyze examples of myth-making, including the Disney movie and John Chapman’s 1840 painting of Pocahontas that hangs in the Capitol Rotunda.

仔细观察每一件艺术作品后，学生们思考以下问题：作品中使用了哪些符号？这幅波卡洪塔斯的画像蕴含了哪些更深层次的信息（既包括对当时的观众，也包括对当今观众的）？这幅波卡洪塔斯的画像在创作之初和今天分别具有哪些用途？在全班活动中，指导学生制作一张图表，比较历史与神话。可以参考大卫·洛文塔尔的文章《构建遗产》（Fabricating Heritage），以帮助他们思考这种比较的图表形式^。20

After looking carefully at each artistic piece, students consider the questions: What symbols are used? What larger messages (both to its contemporary audience and present-day audience) are embedded in this representation of Pocahontas? What purposes does this representation of Pocahontas serve (both at the time of its creation and present day)? In a whole-class activity, guide students in making a chart comparing history to myth. See David Lowenthal’s essay “Fabricating Heritage” for help in considering what this comparison might look like.²⁰

资源和工具

Sources and Tools

来源1.1：“真实关系” （改编）

SOURCE 1.1: “TRUE RELATION” (ADAPTED)

来源：摘自约翰·史密斯（1608 年）所著《弗吉尼亚殖民地建立以来发生的重大事件和事故的真实记述》，载于 L.G. 加德纳编《早期弗吉尼亚叙事集，1606-1625 年》（纽约：查尔斯·斯克里布纳之子出版社，1907 年），第 48、50 页。

Source: Excerpt adapted from John Smith (1608), A true relation of such occurrences and accidents of note as hath happened in Virginia since the first planting of that colony. In Narratives of Early Virginia, 1606–1625, ed. L. G. Gardiner (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1907), 48, 50.

在线影印版可在www.americanjourneys.org/aj-074/获取。

Online facsimile edition available at www.americanjourneys.org/aj-074/

（原来的）

(Original)

抵达韦拉莫科莫科时，他们的皇帝骄傲地躺在一张一英尺高的床架上，床架下垫着十几张垫子……他神情庄严威严，令我肃然起敬……他热情地欢迎我，说了许多好话，并端来满满几盘各式各样的食物，向我保证他会与我交好，并承诺四天之内释放我……他问我此行的目的……又问我们为何要乘船继续前行……

Arriving at Weramocomoco, their emperour proudly lying uppon a Bedstead a foote high upon tenne or twelve Mattes … with such a grave and majesticall countenance, as drave me into admiration…. hee kindly welcomed me with good wordes, and great Platters of sundrie victuals, assuring mee his friendship, and my libertie within foure days…. Hee asked mee the cause of our comming … demaunded why we went further with our Boate….

他答应给我玉米、鹿肉，或者任何我想喂饱我们的食物：斧头和铜器我们得给他做，而且谁也别来打扰我们。我答应了他的请求：就这样，他用尽一切办法让我满意，然后送我回家了……

… Hee promised to give me Corne, Venison, or what I wanted to feede us: Hatchets and Copper wee should make him, and none should disturbe us. This request I promised to performe: and thus, having with all the kindnes hee could devise, sought to content me, hee sent me home….

 

 

资料来源1.2：“通史” （改编版）

SOURCE 1.2: “GENERAL HISTORY” (ADAPTED)

来源：摘自约翰·史密斯 (1624) 所著《弗吉尼亚、新英格兰和夏岛通史》。载于《约翰·史密斯船长全集 (1580–1631)》第 2 卷，PL Barbour 编辑（教堂山：北卡罗来纳大学出版社，1986 年），第 151 页。

Source: Excerpt adapted from John Smith (1624), General History of Virginia, New England and the Summer Isles. In The Complete Works of Captain John Smith (1580–1631), Vol. 2, ed., P. L. Barbour (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), 151.

也可在线访问：http://www.virtualjamestown.org/firsthand.html

Also available online at http://www.virtualjamestown.org/firsthand.html

（原来的）

(Original)

最后，他们把他带到了梅罗诺科莫科，那里是他们的皇帝波瓦坦的所在地……当他觐见国王时，所有人都发出了热烈的欢呼……他们用尽一切野蛮的方式款待了他，然后进行了长时间的商议，最终决定在波瓦坦面前搬来两块巨石：然后，所有能抓住他的人都把他拖到石头前，把他的头放在石头上，准备用棍棒击碎他的脑袋。国王最亲爱的女儿波卡洪塔斯见求无果，便用双臂抱住他的头，用自己的头盖住他的头，救他一命；皇帝这才放心，他活了下来……

At last they brought him to Meronocomoco, where was Powhatan their Emperor…. At his entrance before the King, all the people gave a great shout … and … having feasted him after their best barbarous manner they could, a long consultation was held, but the conclusion was, two great stones were brought before Powhatan: then, as many as could layd hands on him, dragged him to them, and thereon laid his head, and being ready with their clubs, to beate out his braines, Pocahontas, the Kings dearest daughter, when no intreaty could prevaile, got his head in her armes, and laid her owne upon his to save him from death; whereat the Emperour was contented he should live….

两天后，波瓦坦把自己装扮得极其可怕，让人把史密斯上尉带到树林里的一座大房子里，让他独自一人坐在火堆旁的垫子上……然后，波瓦坦，与其说像人，不如说更像个魔鬼……走到他面前，告诉他现在他们是朋友了，他马上要去詹姆斯敦给他送两门大炮和一块磨石，作为回报，他将……永远视他为自己的儿子……

Two dayes after, Powhatan having disguised himselfe in the most fearefullest manner he could, caused Captaine Smith to be brought forth to a great house in the woods, and there upon a mat by the fire to be left alone … then Powhatan more like a devill then a man … came unto him and told him now they were friends, and presently he should goe to James towne, to send him two great gunnes, and a gryndstone, for which he would … for ever esteeme him as his sonne….

 

 

资料来源1.3：“亚当斯的诠释” （改编）

SOURCE 1.3: “ADAMS’S INTERPRETATION” (ADAPTED)

来源：摘要改编自亨利·亚当斯（1867 年 1 月）的文章“约翰·史密斯船长”，《北美评论》104（214）。

Source: Summary adapted from Henry Adams (1867, January), “Captain John Smith,” The North American Review 104 (214).

 

 

资料来源1.4：“勒梅的诠释” （改编）

SOURCE 1.4: “LEMAY‘S INTERPRETATION” (ADAPTED)

资料来源：摘要改编自 JA Leo Lemay，《约翰·史密斯船长的美国梦》（夏洛茨维尔：弗吉尼亚大学出版社，1991 年）。

Source: Summary adapted from J. A. Leo Lemay, The American Dream of Captain John Smith (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1991).

资料来源1.5：“刘易斯的解释”（改编版）

SOURCE 1.5: “LEWIS’S INTERPRETATION” (ADAPTED)

资料来源：摘要改编自保罗·刘易斯所著《伟大的流氓：约翰·史密斯传》（纽约：大卫·麦凯公司，1966 年）。

Source: Summary adapted from Paul Lewis, The Great Rogue: A Biography of John Smith (New York: David McKay Company, 1966).

 

 

资料来源1.6：“巴伯的解释” （改编）

SOURCE 1.6: “BARBOUR’S INTERPRETATION” (ADAPTED)

资料来源：摘要改编自 Philip Barbour 的《波卡洪塔斯和她的世界》（波士顿：霍顿·米夫林出版社，1969 年）。

Source: Summary adapted from Philip Barbour, Pocahontas and Her World (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1969).

工具1.2 ：比较史密斯的账目​

TOOL 1.2: COMPARING SMITH’S ACCOUNTS

---

1. 史密斯关于1607年12月被俘经历的两份记述中，有哪些不同的事实？（请在下方空白处作答，或在背面绘制维恩图。）
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   《真实记述》（资料1.1）记载：
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   《通史》（资料1.2）记载：
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. What are the different facts in Smith’s two accounts of his captivity in December 1607? (Use the space below to answer or create a Venn diagram on the back of this sheet.)
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   A True Relation (Source 1.1) says:
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   General History (Source 1.2) says:
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. 史密斯为什么要补充他之前的故事呢？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
4. Why would Smith add on to his earlier story?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
5. 他为什么会撒谎、夸大其词，甚至捏造新信息？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
6. Why might he lie or exaggerate and invent new information?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
7. 他为什么不编造这个故事呢？
8. Why wouldn’t he lie about the story?

工具1.3 ：比较历史学家和史密斯​

TOOL 1.3: COMPARING HISTORIANS AND SMITH

---

假设史密斯最新著作（《弗吉尼亚通史》）中的基本事实（尽管不一定是对这些事实的解释）属实，请在下方记录该段落中事实的“逐条”描述：

Assuming that the basic facts (though not necessarily the interpretation of the facts) in Smith’s latest account (the General History of Virginia) are true, record below a “play-by-play” description of the facts in the passage:

1.  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2.  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3.  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
4.  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
5.  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
6.  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
7.  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
8.  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
9.  
10.  

 

 

哪些历史学家认为上述基本过程确实发生过？

Which historians believe that the basic sequence above did occur?

 

 

请描述他们认为上述事实意味着什么：

Describe what they think the facts (above) mean:

1. 历史学家___________________认为……
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. Historian ___________________ believes …
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. 历史学家___________________认为……
4. Historian ___________________ believes …

工具1.4 ：比较历史学家和史密斯​

TOOL 1.4: COMPARING HISTORIANS AND SMITH

---

请参阅史密斯最新记述中对事实的“逐条描述”。并将其与刘易斯和巴伯对这些事实的解读进行比较。

Refer to the “play-by-play” description of the facts in Smith’s latest account. Compare this to Lewis’s and Barbour’s interpretations of these facts.

 

 

哪些历史学家认为上述基本过程确实发生过？

Which historians believe that the basic sequence above did occur?

 

 

 

 

请描述他们认为上述事实意味着什么：

Describe what they think the facts (above) mean:

1. 历史学家___________________认为……
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. Historian ___________________ believes …
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. 历史学家___________________认为……
4. Historian ___________________ believes …

 

 

工具1.5 ：分析性文章波卡洪塔斯救了约翰·史密斯吗？​​​

TOOL 1.5: ANALYTICAL ESSAY DID POCAHONTAS SAVE JOHN SMITH?

---

1. 再次观看迪士尼电影《风中奇缘》中宝嘉康蒂救约翰·史密斯的片段。迪士尼声称这部电影“负责任、准确且尊重历史”。你同意吗？为什么？请用一篇文章阐述你的观点。并引用相关资料中的证据来支持你对这段电影片段的分析。

1. Watch the Disney clip of Pocahontas saving John Smith again. Disney claims that its film is “responsible, accurate, and respectful.” Do you agree? Why or why not? Explain your position in an essay. Use evidence from the documents to support your analysis of this film clip.

2. 写一份论文提纲，并与老师分享。

2. Write an outline of your essay and share it with your teacher.

1. 明确立场。
2. Include a clear position.
3. 列出你用来支持你立场的要点。
4. List the points you want to make to support your position.
5. 列举支持你观点的关键证据。
6. Cite key pieces of evidence that support your position.

3. 写你的文章。

3. Write your essay.

1. 在引言段落中阐明你的立场。
2. Convey your position in the introductory paragraph.
3. 请阐述你的观点和证据。
4. Explain your points and your evidence.
5. 最后总结你的论点。
6. Conclude with a wrap-up of your argument.

推荐资源

Suggested Resources

http://www.virtualjamestown.org/

http://www.virtualjamestown.org/

该网站由弗吉尼亚理工大学和弗吉尼亚大学及其数字历史中心合作创建，包含丰富的教学资源，包括当地印第安人的第一手资料和视频采访。

This site, created through collaboration between Virginia Tech and the University of Virginia and its Center for Digital History, includes a rich set of teaching and learning resources, including first-hand accounts and video interviews with local Indians.

http://historicjamestowne.org/

http://historicjamestowne.org/

该网站由弗吉尼亚州古迹保护协会和国家公园管理局维护，内容包括早期殖民者的传记以及教学资源，旨在让学生参与正在进行的考古发掘工作和该地区的地理知识。

Maintained by the Association for the Preservation of Virginia’s Antiquities and the National Park Service, this site includes biographies of the early colonists and teaching resources for involving students with the ongoing archeological digs and the area’s geography.

http://www.apva.org/jr.html

http://www.apva.org/jr.html

本网站由弗吉尼亚州文物保护协会维护，是詹姆斯敦遗址考古工作的官方网站。内容包括展览信息、正在进行的挖掘工作的最新进展以及与詹姆斯敦相关的简要历史介绍。

Maintained by the Association for the Preservation of Virginia’s Antiquities, this is the home page for the archeological efforts at the Jamestown site. It includes exhibits and updates about the ongoing digs and brief histories relevant to Jamestown.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/loudountah/exploresources.php

http://chnm.gmu.edu/loudountah/exploresources.php

这是一个独特的网站，展示了一位小学教师与学生一起规划和使用约翰·史密斯 1612 年绘制的弗吉尼亚地图的视频，以及一位学者对该地图的分析。

A unique site that shows a video of an elementary teacher planning and using John Smith’s 1612 map of Virginia with her students as well as a scholar’s analysis of the map.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/POCA/POC-home.html

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/POCA/POC-home.html

本网站主要介绍宝嘉康蒂及其不同时期的形象。您可以在这里找到她的洗礼画作。

This site focuses on Pocahontas and representations of her over time. Here you can find the Baptism painting.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pocahontas

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pocahontas

作为 PBS 视频《揭秘波卡洪塔斯》的配套网站，该网站包括一篇关于“詹姆斯敦科学”的专题报道、对一位历史学家和一位潮水区印第安酋长的采访，以及一个关于波卡洪塔斯形象变化的互动展览。

This companion site to the PBS video Pocahontas Revealed includes a feature on the “science of Jamestown,” interviews with a historian and a Tidewater Indian chief, and an interactive exhibit of the changing images of Pocahontas.

http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/pocahontas/index.php

http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/pocahontas/index.php

这是一个由一位英语教授维护的档案库，其中包含大量关于波卡洪塔斯的资料。

An archive maintained by an English professor, this site has an extensive variety of resources concerning Pocahontas.

http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/index.htm

http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/index.htm

该网站由国家公园管理局维护，包含有关詹姆斯敦及其居民各个方面的资料单。

Maintained by the National Park Service, this site includes fact sheets about many aspects of Jamestown and its residents.

http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/amerhistory/interactives/

http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/amerhistory/interactives/

用户可以将宝嘉康蒂的形象与描述进行匹配，然后通过生动的上下文线索将它们放置在时间轴上。这项基于网络的互动活动利用宝嘉康蒂形象的不断变化来引入时间顺序思维。

Users can match representations of Pocahontas with descriptions and then access lively contextual clues to place them on a timeline. This interactive web-based activity uses changing representations of Pocahontas to introduce chronological thinking.

为纪念列克星顿战役150周年——这场“响彻世界的枪声”——美国邮政发行了一枚面值两美分的纪念邮票（资料来源2.3）。这枚邮票发行于1925年，描绘了一队民兵坚定地对抗优势英军的场景。邮票展现了民兵们还击、装弹、挥舞拳头等各种姿态，呈现了美国人引以为豪的英雄故事。

For the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Lexington—the “shot heard ’round the world”—the U.S. Postal Service produced a two-cent commemorative stamp (Source 2.3). Issued in 1925, the stamp depicts a solid line of Minutemen resolutely facing superior British forces. Portraying the Minutemen in various stages of returning fire, reloading, and defiantly shaking their fists, the image projects a heroic version of the story that Americans had proudly come to regard as fact.

只有一个小问题：这枚邮票并非基于目击者的描述，而是基于亨利·桑德汉姆 (Henry Sandham) 于 1886 年创作的一幅画作。桑德汉姆的画作完成于事件发生一个多世纪之后（资料来源 2.2），描绘了反抗的美国人违抗命令离开列克星顿绿地的情景。然而，如果我们看看另一幅描绘该事件的作品，一幅创作于事件发生几周后而非几年后的画作，就会呈现出截然不同的印象。1775 年秋，一位名叫阿莫斯·杜利特尔 (Amos Doolittle) 的 21 岁银匠创作了一幅金属版画，描绘了当年四月发生的这场遭遇战（资料来源 2.1）。杜利特尔的版画中，英国正规军向一群仓皇逃窜的民兵开火，列克星顿民兵没有一个人表现出丝毫抵抗。杜利特尔版画中的殖民者并非在绝对劣势下屹立不倒，而是在拼命逃命。

There was only one little problem: The stamp was based not on eyewitness accounts of the battle, but on an 1886 painting by Henry Sandham. Completed well over a century after the actual event (Source 2.2), Sandham’s painting showed rebellious Americans defying orders to leave Lexington Green. However, if we look at another rendering of the event, one created weeks after the event, not years, a different impression emerges. In the fall of 1775, a 21-year-old silversmith named Amos Doolittle created a metal engraving depicting the encounter that had taken place that April (Source 2.1). Doolittle’s etching has British regulars firing on a ragtag group of fleeing Minutemen, with not a single member of the Lexington militia showing the slightest sign of resistance. The colonists in Doolittle’s engraving are not standing tall in the face of overwhelming odds. They are fleeing for their lives.

这两幅图像形成了鲜明的对比——第一幅承载着美国邮政署的权威性和合法性，第二幅则出自一位名不见经传的康涅狄格州工匠之手——这引出了一个关键问题：1775年4月19日清晨，莱克星顿绿地究竟发生了什么？称这场遭遇为“战斗”是否恰当？称之为“屠杀”或“不幸的血腥误会”是否更合适？为了简洁起见，是否最好将此事中立地称为“莱克星顿事件”？

The striking contrast between these two images—the first carrying the weight and legitimacy of the United States Postal Service, the second drawn by an obscure Connecticut craftsman—brings us to a critical question: What happened at Lexington Green on the morning of April 19, 1775? Is it even appropriate to call this encounter a “battle”? Would it be better labeled a “massacre” or even an unfortunate but bloody misunderstanding? Would it be preferable, for simplicity’s sake, to refer to this event neutrally as the “Incident at Lexington”?

史学辩论

Historiographical Debate

列克星顿战役的真相在事件发生约50年后才浮出水面，当时列克星顿和康科德两镇就谁才是美国独立战争中第一个击毙英军的地方展开了争论。1825年，列克星顿居民伊莱亚斯·菲尼出版了《列克星顿战役史》，试图驳斥美国首次抵抗实际上发生在邻近的康科德的说法。菲尼利用事发50年后收集的目击者证词，对列克星顿战役的描述与桑德汉姆1886年的画作（以及1925年的邮票）相符。根据菲尼的记述，民兵队长约翰·帕克命令“所有人坚守阵地”，并威胁要枪毙第一个擅离职守的人。菲尼随后列出了每一位坚守阵地并向英军还击的民兵，其中包括几位负伤后仍继续战斗的士兵。因此，亨利·桑德汉姆1886年的画作与菲尼的作品相呼应也就不足为奇了：这幅画是列克星顿历史学会委托创作的，学会支付给桑德汉姆4000美元，让他创作一幅描绘列克星顿之子英勇形象的插图^。

The question of what really happened at Lexington came to light some 50 years after the event as the towns of Lexington and Concord fought over the distinction of who spilled the first British blood of the American Revolution. In 1825, Lexington’s Elias Phinney published his History of the Battle at Lexington, an effort to refute claims that the first American resistance actually occurred at neighboring Concord. Using depositions of eyewitnesses taken 50 years after the fact, Phinney describes the Battle of Lexington in ways consistent with Sandham’s 1886 painting (and, for that matter, the 1925 postage stamp). According to Phinney’s account, John Parker, the Minutemen’s captain, ordered “every man to stand his ground” and threatened to shoot the first man who left his post. Phinney then lists each Minuteman who stood his ground and returned fire on the British, including several who continued fighting after sustaining wounds. No wonder, then, that Henry Sandham’s 1886 painting corresponds to Phinney’s work: It was commissioned by the Lexington Historical Society, which paid Sandham $4,000 for an illustration that portrayed Lexington’s sons in a courageous light.¹

在菲尼的记述发表七年后，康科德的埃兹拉·里普利发表了反驳文章。里普利认为，第一次武装抵抗英国人的事件发生在康科德，并声称列克星顿的民兵从未向英军还击。相反，他声称列克星顿的民兵在英军开火后立即溃散（这一描述与1775年杜立特尔的版画相符）。几乎没有证据支持美国人在列克星顿进行反击的说法。里普利认为，那些证实这一说法的描述都出自英国军官之手，他们不仅想证明美国人开了枪，而且还想证明是美国人先开的枪。里普利暗示里普利认为，列克星顿事件可以称之为屠杀或混战，但不能称之为战斗。相反，他断言美国独立战争的第一场真正意义上的战斗发生在康科德。尽管里普利的论述不无道理，但^它实际上却是为了使康科德赢得美国独立战争中第一个反抗英国军队的荣誉，正如菲尼试图将这一殊荣归于列克星顿一样。

Seven years after Phinney’s account, Concord’s Ezra Ripley issued a rebuttal. Arguing that the first armed resistance to the British had taken place at Concord, Ripley contended that Lexington’s Minutemen never returned fire on the British. Instead, he claimed that the Lexington militia scattered in disarray as soon as the British started firing (a depiction that corresponds with the 1775 Doolittle engraving). Little evidence existed to support the notion that Americans fought back at Lexington. Those descriptions that did substantiate that claim, Ripley argued, were by British officers who had a vested interest not only in showing that the Americans had fired their weapons, but fired first. Ripley suggested that the incident at Lexington could be called a massacre or a melee, but not a battle. Instead, he asserted that the first real battle of the American Revolution took place at Concord.² Despite its strengths, Ripley’s account was a thinly veiled attempt to win Concord the honor of being the first to fight back against the British in the American Revolution, just as Phinney’s was an attempt to claim that distinction for Lexington.

近一个世纪后，在马萨诸塞州历史学会的一次会议上，来自波士顿的银行家兼业余历史学家哈罗德·默多克发表了一篇论文，对列克星顿战役的传统叙述提出了质疑。他认为，美国人顽强抵抗英军进攻的故事，是由于“大量可疑证据的积累”而逐渐被人们接受为事实。“传统、传说、曲调和歌曲都在列克星顿故事的重构中发挥了作用。” ^³为了论证列克星顿战役的真相，默多克首先引用了杜立特的版画，指出“即使使用放大镜也无法发现该连队中任何成员表现出抵抗姿态；没有还击的迹象，甚至连装弹的迹象都没有。” ^⁴默多克解释说，随着时间的推移，艺术作品描绘了美国人更强烈的抵抗姿态，最终在桑德汉姆1886年的画作中达到顶峰，画中的殖民者被描绘成手持火枪的叛军。虽然默多克没有为历史证据体系引入任何新信息，但他一丝不苟地详细描述了菲尼的记述、桑德汉姆的画作和其他证据中的矛盾之处，例如英国人遭受的伤亡人数异常少（一名士兵受了轻伤，一匹马受了伤）。

Nearly a century later, at a meeting of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Harold Murdock, a banker and amateur historian from Boston, delivered a paper that called into question the traditional account of the Battle of Lexington. The story of Americans defiantly resisting a British advance, he argued, was due to “the accumulation of a mass of questionable evidence” that had gradually become accepted as truth. “Tradition, legend, tune, and song all played their part in the reconstruction of the Lexington story.”³ In making the argument for what happened at Lexington, Murdock began with the Doolittle engraving, noting that “even the magnifying glass fail[ed] to reveal any member of that company in an attitude of resistance; no suggestion of a return fire, or even of loading.”⁴ Over time, Murdock explained, artistic renderings depicted greater levels of resistance on the part of the Americans, culminating in Sandham’s 1886 painting in which the colonists emerged as musket-toting rebels. While Murdock introduced no new information to the body of historical evidence, he painstakingly detailed the discrepancies in Phinney’s account, Sandham’s painting, and other evidence, such as the remarkably few casualties sustained by the British (one superficially wounded soldier and a wounded horse).

1959年，亚瑟·图特洛特（Arthur Tourtellot）用此后几年获得的证据支持了默多克（Murdock）的论点。他承认美国人可能确实向英军开火，但他指出，“美军的火力远不及英军，而且极其不稳定和不规则”——显然并非民兵在近距离持续装弹的密集阵型。⁵基于^这些学者的说法，列克星顿“战役”——一个值得印制纪念邮票的故事——似乎更像是神话而非历史。

In 1959 Arthur Tourtellot supported Murdock’s arguments with evidence that had become available in the intervening years. While conceding that the Americans might have actually fired on the British, he noted that “the American fire did not come close to matching the British in volume, and it was extremely erratic and irregular”—clearly not a solid line of Minutemen reloading their firearms at close range.⁵ Based on the claims of these scholars, the “Battle” of Lexington, a tale worthy of commemorative postage stamps, would seem to be more myth than history.

原始资料怎么说？诚然，关于1775年4月19日清晨莱克星顿绿地究竟发生了什么，至今仍存在争议，但普遍认为，这并非一场史诗般的战斗，而更像是杜利特尔1775年版画中所描绘的那种混乱撤退。莱克星顿民兵自身的原始记录也强化了这一说法。1775年4月23日至25日，即莱克星顿和康科德事件发生几天后，由殖民地居民设立的法外管理机构——马萨诸塞省议会，安排了支持民兵事业的治安法官对在场的莱克星顿绿地居民进行取证。这些证词被送往议会，并在全英国公布，试图将殖民地居民描绘成英国军队野蛮行径的无辜受害者。当时的殖民地法官共对97人进行了21次取证；有些证词只列出了 1 或 2 个人的名字，而有些证词则包含了 30 多个证人的名字。

What Do the Primary Sources Say? To be sure, disagreement remains over what exactly happened on Lexington Green on the morning of April 19, 1775, but the consensus points away from an epic battle and more toward the chaotic retreat depicted in Doolittle’s 1775 engraving. This version is strengthened by the primary accounts of the Lexington Minutemen themselves. On April 23–25, 1775, several days after the events at Lexington and Concord, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, an extralegal governing body set up by the colonials, arranged for justices of the peace (favorable to the Minutemen’s cause) to take depositions from those present on Lexington Green. These depositions were sent to Parliament and published throughout England in an effort to portray the colonials as innocent victims of the British army’s barbarism. Colonial justices of the period took 21 depositions from 97 individuals; while some of the depositions bore the name of only 1 or 2, some contained the names of over 30 deponents.

其中一份证词来自纳撒尼尔·穆利肯、菲利普·罗素和列克星顿民兵的其他 32 名成员，对列克星顿绿地的景象描述如下（见资料 2.5）：

One such deposition, taken from Nathaniel Mulliken, Philip Russell, and 32 other members of the Lexington militia, described the scene at Lexington Green as follows (see Source 2.5):

与当时的其他证词一样，这份证词也坚称是英军先开火，而且并非针对严阵以待的民兵，而是针对背对英军、四散奔逃的人群。虽然这对列克星顿民兵来说并不光彩，但这样的描述有​​助于让其他殖民地以及议会成员相信英军的残暴。尽管这份证词提供了令人信服的证据，但它也可能受到了殖民地居民政治利益的影响，他们试图将自己描绘成一场单方面屠杀的受害者。我们应该考虑对同一事件的其他视角。

Like the other depositions taken at this time, the account adamantly held that the British fired first, and not on a firmly planted line of Minutemen, but on a dispersing crowd fleeing with their backs turned. While not flattering to the Lexington militia, such an image would have been useful in convincing the other colonies, as well as members of Parliament, of the cruelty of the British troops. While the deposition presents compelling evidence, it may also have been tainted by the political interests of colonials seeking to portray themselves as victims of a one-sided massacre. We should consider additional perspectives on the same events.

英国第四轻步兵团连队成员约翰·巴克中尉是当天早上在列克星顿绿地的军官之一，他在日记中记录了这些事件出人意料的相似描述（见资料 2.4）：

Lieutenant John Barker, a member of the British Light Infantry Company of the Fourth Regiment and one of the officers present on Lexington Green that morning, recorded in his diary a surprisingly similar account of these events (see Source 2.4):

对比美英双方对莱克星顿绿地事件的描述，我们或许会发现一些差异。例如，双方都声称对方先开火，这并不令人意外。但更引人注目的是，双方的说法在以下方面却不谋而合：双方都没有提及民兵的顽强抵抗。

In looking at both American and British versions of the events at Lexington Green, we might expect some differences. It is not surprising, for instance, that each report claimed that the other fired first. But more striking is where these accounts match up: Neither side describes significant resistance by the Minutemen.

历史学家在探寻历史真相时，依赖于证据佐证，即仔细考量不同来源的共同点。当多个来源的说法一致时，尤其当这些来源来自对立双方时，我们就能更信赖其准确性。一位英国军官的日记与民兵的证词相符，这无疑增强了这一事件版本的可信度。

When historians try to discover what happened in the past, they rely on corroboration, the careful consideration of points of contact across different sources. When multiple sources agree, particularly when they come from opposing sides, we can take greater stock in their accuracy. The fact that a British officer’s diary corroborates the deposition given by the Minutemen lends greater credibility to this version of the event.

原始资料是历史课本中呈现给学生的叙述素材。但神话也会悄然渗入教科书。请看下面这段摘自1963年美国中学历史教科书的文字：

Primary sources are the raw materials that get distilled into the textbook narratives served up to students in history classes. But myth creeps into textbooks as well. Consider the following passage taken from a 1963 American history textbook for middle school students:

教科书反复声称，民兵在接到解散命令时“坚守阵地”。然而，民兵自身的证词和巴克的日记中都没有提到民兵“坚守阵地”这件事。

The textbook repeats the claim that the Minutemen “stood their ground” when ordered to disperse. Yet neither the Minutemen’s own depositions nor Barker’s diary say anything about the Minutemen “standing their ground.”

如果我们再查阅另一份资料，即列克星顿绿地事件发生时耶鲁大学校长埃兹拉·斯泰尔斯的日记，就能更深入地了解当时可能发生的情况（资料2.6）。根据斯泰尔斯从英军指挥官皮特凯恩少校那里得到的消息，美国殖民者在接到解散命令时确实“坚守阵地”。然而，一旦开火，他们便四散奔逃。正如斯泰尔斯所记录的那样：

If we look at yet another source, the diary of Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale College at the time of the events at Lexington Green, we gain a deeper understanding of what may have happened (Source 2.6). According to an account Stiles received from Major Pitcairn, who commanded the British troops, the American colonists did “stand their ground” when they were ordered to disperse. However, once firing commenced, they ran for their lives. As Stiles recorded it:

皮特凯恩并没有说他亲眼看到美国人先开火，也没有说交火开始后他们就坚守阵地。他只是说殖民者违抗了撤离莱克星顿绿地的命令。斯泰尔斯的说法未必与巴克或穆利肯的说法相矛盾。或许民兵确实坚守了阵地，但当枪声响起时，他们可能没有还击就逃走了。

Pitcairn did not say that he saw the Americans fire first. Nor does he say that once the firing began they stood their ground. What he does say is that the colonists defied an order to quit Lexington Green. Stiles’s version does not necessarily contradict those of Barker or Mulliken. Perhaps the Minutemen did stand their ground, but when shots were fired, they may have fled without returning fire.

关于列克星顿绿地事件，仍有许多未解之谜，尤其是关于谁开了第一枪。巴克声称，当英军接近绿地时，民兵向英军“开了一两枪”；而民兵则辩称，他们是在背对英军时遭到射击的。这种说法虽然并不令人意外，但实际上，它更多地反映了每份文件的写作目的，而非所描述的事件本身——在判断一份文件的可信度时，这一点值得我们牢记。任何文件都不是凭空产生的。每份文件的历史背景究竟是什么？

Unanswered questions continue to swirl about the events on Lexington Green, especially concerning who fired the first shot. Barker claimed that as troops approached the Green, the Minutemen “fired one or two shots” at the British; the Minutemen argued that they were fired upon when their backs were turned. While not surprising, the discrepancy actually tells us more about the purpose of each document than the actual events described—a point to keep in mind when judging a document’s trustworthiness. No document is written in a vacuum. What exactly were the historical circumstances, or context, for each document?

我们知道，民兵的声明是由省议会递交给英国议会和英国民众的，他们希望将自己描绘成英国侵略的无辜受害者，而不是煽动叛乱的革命者。至于巴克，他写日记很可能并非仅仅为了记录内心感受，而是因为如果他需要向上级解释自己的行为，日记或许能为他开脱罪责。事实上，在我们与一群历史学家和一群高中生共同进行的一项研究中，其中一位历史学家向我们指出，巴克可能是在试图“掩盖自己的过错”。在两个都不光彩的选择之间——承认自己下达了开火命令，或者承认自己失去了对部队的控制——后者显然更可取。^因此，如果这位中尉必须为自己下达开火命令的指控辩护，巴克的日记就能成为他的不在场证明。如果说他犯了错，那不是因为他下令开火，而是因为他的士兵在行军3小时后疲惫不堪、浑身湿透，在遭到射击时进行了还击。

We know that the Minutemen’s statement was sent by the Provincial Congress to Parliament and the British people, hoping to portray themselves as innocent victims of British aggression, not rabblerousing revolutionaries. For his part, Barker likely didn’t keep a diary simply to record his innermost feelings, but because it might serve to exonerate him if he had to justify his actions to higher authorities. Indeed, in a study we did using these documents with a group of historians and a group of high school students, one of the historians suggested to us that Barker may have been trying to “cover his backside.” Caught between two unflattering alternatives—admitting that he issued an order to fire or admitting that he lost control over his troops—the latter option was preferable.¹⁰ Thus, Barker’s diary would provide an alibi if the lieutenant had to defend himself against a charge of issuing an order to shoot. If he was at fault, it wasn’t because he issued an order to fire, but because his men, tired and soggy after a 3-hour march, were guilty of firing back when fired upon.

学生面临的挑战。当历史学家审查有关列克星顿或任何历史事件的证据时，他们首先会运用一套常见的解决问题的策略。首先，他们会询问资料来源，这个过程我们称之为“溯源”。约翰·巴克中尉是谁？我们如何确定他的证词可信？我们对证人纳撒尼尔·穆利肯、菲利普·罗素以及他们召集起来在三位法官面前作证的团体了解多少？和平？接下来，历史学家会考虑文件的背景：例如，为什么民兵组织要找治安法官来记录列克星顿事件？他们知道自己的证词会被送交殖民地议会代表本杰明·富兰克林，这如何影响了他们对治安法官的言行？最后，即使多份文件在关键细节上存在分歧，通过查阅多份文件（即相互印证）如何能够帮助我们更全面地理解这些事件？

Challenges for Students. When historians review evidence about Lexington or any historical event, they begin by using a common set of problem solving strategies. First, they ask about the source, a process we refer to as “sourcing.” Who was Lt. John Barker and how do we know he can be believed? What do we know about the deponents Nathaniel Mulliken, Philip Russell, and the group they assembled to testify before three Justices of the Peace? Next, historians consider a document’s context: Why, for example, did the Minutemen seek justices of the peace to take depositions for what happened at Lexington? How did knowing that their testimony would be sent to Benjamin Franklin, the colonial representative to Parliament, influence what they did and did not say to the justices? Finally, how does examining multiple documents, the act of corroboration, permit a broader understanding of these events, even when these documents disagree on key details?

在我们之前提到的研究中，我们使用列克星顿文献，比较了一组专业历史学家和一组才华横溢的高中生。我们特意挑选了专业领域并非美国历史的历史学家，以及在AP课程中学习并在美国革命相关知识测试中取得优异成绩的学生。在相同的文献资料和教科书段落下，两组学生都对每份文献的可靠性进行了排名。对于历史学家而言，教科书段落的可靠性排名垫底，因为其内容无法验证。 ¹¹ 而学生们则倾向于认为教科书最为可靠，甚至有学生指出，教科书“只是在陈述事实”。 ¹²对于学生来说，缺乏佐证证据和每份文献的来源信息似乎都无关紧要，但这些因素对历史学家而言却至关重要。尽管这些高中生阅读能力很强，但他们尚未养成进行历史探究所需的习惯。

In the study we referred to above, we compared a group of professional historians to a group of talented high school students using these Lexington documents. We purposely selected historians with specialties outside of American history, and we purposely selected students enrolled in Advanced Placement classrooms who had scored well on a test of facts about the American Revolution. Given the same sources and textbook passage used here, each group ranked each document in terms of its reliability. For historians, the textbook passage ranked dead last, because its claims could not be verified.¹¹ Students, on the other hand, tended to view the textbook as most reliable, observing in one case that the book was “just reporting the facts.”¹² Neither the lack of corroborating evidence nor the source information for each document seemed of great importance to the students, but those factors were of utmost importance to the historians. Even though the high school students were skilled readers, they had not yet acquired the habits necessary for engaging in historical inquiry.

1775年4月19日清晨，莱克星顿绿地究竟发生了什么？这个问题为学生们提供了一个绝佳的机会，让他们开始培养历史阅读技巧和思维习惯。美国人的集体记忆中，有一幅画面：民兵们坚守在莱克星顿，打响了拉尔夫·沃尔多·爱默生所说的“响彻世界的一枪”。然而，对莱克星顿事件的证据进行考察，却对这种英雄式的描述提出了令人不安的质疑。形象与证据之间的差异，为学生们提供了一个切入历史研究的切入点：调查和评估证据，将个别记述置于更广阔的背景之中，并核实文献，所有这些都是为了构建一幅历史全貌。学生们的任务看似简单：确定莱克星顿战役是否真的发生过！

The question of what happened on Lexington Green on the morning of April 19, 1775, provides a ripe opportunity for students to begin to develop historical reading skills and habits of mind. Part of Americans’ collective memory is the image of the Minutemen standing strong at Lexington as they fired, in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s words, the “shot heard ’round the world.” But an examination of the evidence from Lexington raises troubling questions about this heroic depiction. The discrepancies between image and evidence provide students with an entry point into doing history: investigating and evaluating evidence, placing individual accounts into a larger context, and corroborating documents, all with the purpose of constructing a picture of what happened in the past. Here the task for students is deceptively straightforward: to determine whether the Battle of Lexington was, in fact, even a battle!

总结性问题。让我们回顾一下，关于莱克星顿绿地事件，我们已知晓哪些事实，哪些事实我们永远无法知晓，以及哪些事实仍悬而未决。我们知道，当英军在前往康科德的途中抵达莱克星顿时，绿地上发生了枪战，造成八名民兵阵亡，十人受伤，而英军方面伤亡甚微（可能是友军误伤）。我们不知道是谁开了第一枪，而且可能永远也不会知道。不同的资料来源对此说法相互矛盾，而且每个来源都有其强烈的动机来做出自己的断言。

Concluding Questions. So let’s step back and consider what we know about the events on Lexington Green, what we will never be able to know, and what is still up for grabs. We know that when the British troops arrived in Lexington en route to Concord shots were fired on the Green that left eight Minutemen dead and ten wounded, and that the British for their part sustained minimal casualties (possibly caused by friendly fire). We do not know who fired the first shot and probably never will. Different sources contradict one another on this point, and each has a strong motive for making the claim that it does.

在这些论断之间穿插着一些问题，学生们可以在构建准确历史叙述的过程中展开辩论：列克星顿之战真的是一场战斗吗？民兵们那天早上真的打算抵抗英国人吗？如果不是，他们的目标是什么？英国人的意图是什么？在随后的美国独立战争中，这些事件对美国人和英国人分别意味着什么？

In between these claims are questions that students can debate as they work to construct an accurate historical narrative: Was the battle at Lexington really a battle? Did the Minutemen intend to resist the British that morning? If not, what was their goal? What was the intention of the British? What did these events mean for both the Americans and the British in the context of the ensuing struggle for American independence?

为什么要教授列克星顿绿地战役？

Why Teach About the Battle at Lexington Green?

这是一个教授已知知识的机会。历史上有些事件已被充分证实，几乎没有争议。就此主题而言，1775年4月19日发生在莱克星顿绿地的冲突毋庸置疑。然而，其他方面却超出了我们目前的理解范围。无论我们做了多少努力，我们都永远无法完全确定究竟发生了什么。

An Opportunity to Teach About What Is Knowable. Some events in history are well-established and there is little debate about what happened. For this topic, there is no question that a conflict took place on Lexington Green on April 19, 1775. Yet other aspects lie beyond our immediate understanding. No matter how much we do, we will never know with absolute certainty what happened.

正是在这片介于已知与未知之间的空间里，历史学家们辛勤耕耘。努力理解哪些可知、哪些不可知，迫使学生们直面证据的复杂性，并为他们提供从事真正历史研究的机会。

It is in this space—between the well-established and the unknowable—that historians toil. Struggling to understand what can and can’t be known forces students to wrestle with the messiness of evidence, and gives them a chance to engage in legitimate historical work.

探索神话如何与历史交织的机会。每个国家的历史都充满了传说、歪曲和神话。教导学生事实错误如何悄然渗入历史记录，甚至被印在邮票上，对于培养他们的怀疑精神和敏锐的辨别力至关重要。同样重要的是，这种方法能将学生变成探寻真相的历史侦探，这比填写练习题更有动力。

A Chance to Explore How Myth Becomes Interwoven with History. Every nation’s history is full of legends, distortions, and myths. Teaching students how factual inaccuracies creep into the historical record, even becoming enshrined on a postage stamp, is essential to helping them develop a sense of skepticism and a keen eye for evidence. Equally important, this approach turns students into historical detectives in search of truth, a task far more motivating than filling in a worksheet.

无论是英国还是美国的第一手资料，都没有证实民兵在列克星顿“屹立不倒”的形象，这种形象是由个人兴趣、可疑的学术研究和地方因素共同塑造的。因此，这为引导学生思考作者的动机、证据的重要性以及为了迎合当下需要而改写历史的普遍倾向提供了一个契机。

Corroborated neither by British nor American primary sources, the image of Minutemen “standing tall” at Lexington has been shaped by personal interest, dubious scholarship, and local concerns. Consequently, it presents an opportunity to teach students to think about the motives of authors, the importance of evidence, and the ever-present tendency to rewrite the past to suit the needs of the present.

利用视觉资料的机会。原始资料是历史的原材料。通常情况下，历史学家依靠书面文献来拼凑过去发生的事件。但视觉资料也可以是原始资料。阿莫斯·杜利特尔1775年的版画就是如此。它与埃兹拉·斯泰尔斯的日记一样，都是重要的第一手资料。两者都创作于事件发生的同一年，都试图记录莱克星顿绿地事件，以供后人参考。

An Opportunity to Use Visual Sources. Primary sources are the raw materials of history. More often than not, historians rely on written documents to piece together the events of the past. But visual sources can be primary sources, too. Amos Doolittle’s 1775 engraving is every bit as much a primary source as the diary of Ezra Stiles. Both were created in the same year as the event itself, and both attempted to record the events at Lexington Green for the sake of posterity.

在历史探究过程中，运用视觉资料至关重要。即使是那些难以理解文字资料的学生，也能有效地找出阿莫斯·杜利特尔的版画和亨利·桑德汉姆的油画之间的视觉差异，并提出假设来解释这两幅图像为何会存在分歧。但需要注意的是：当使用视觉资料时，学生往往会将视觉上的准确性——即画面看起来有多逼真——误认为是历史的准确性。由于桑德汉姆的画作“看起来更真实”，比杜利特尔的简笔画人物更栩栩如生，一些学生即使面对大量相反的证据，也会认为桑德汉姆的画作更准确。

Using visual sources is invaluable to the process of history inquiry. Even students struggling with written sources can productively locate the visual discrepancies between Amos Doolittle’s engraving and Henry Sandham’s oil painting, and generate hypotheses for why the two images might disagree. But beware: When you use visual sources, students will invariably mistake visual accuracy—how realistic a picture looks—with historical accuracy. Because Sandham’s painting “looks more real,” with more lifelike depictions than Doolittle’s stick figures, some students will judge it to be the more accurate of the two, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

你会如何使用这些材料？

How Might You Use These Materials?

情景 1（1-2 小时课程）。列克星顿绿地之战真的是一场战斗吗？分析并比较列克星顿绿地冲突的图片，以找出可能发生的事情（参见工具 2.1）。

Scenario 1 (1–2 Hour Lesson). Was the battle at Lexington Green truly a battle? Analyze and compare images of the conflict at Lexington Green to figure out what might have happened (see Tool 2.1).

本课首先展示三幅图像：杜利特尔的版画、桑德汉姆的油画以及美国邮票上的图像（资料来源 2.1、2.2、2.3） 。不要提及每幅图像的创作日期，让学生描述他们所看到的内容。他们会注意到邮票是根据桑德汉姆的油画设计的，这在学生看来可能会赋予这幅图像特殊的权威性。（否则邮政部门为何会选择它呢？）帮助学生认识到这两幅图像呈现的是同一事件的不同版本。由于桑德汉姆的油画得益于当时艺术在透视和景深表现方面的进步，一些学生会认为它比杜利特尔的版画更准确。培养历史判断力的一部分在于抵制视觉上的诱惑，并认识到生动逼真的画面并不能取代历史的真实性。

Begin this lesson with three images: the Doolittle engraving, the Sandham painting, and the image of the U.S. postage stamp (Sources 2.1, 2.2, 2.3). Without recourse to the dates of each image, ask students to describe what they see. They will notice that the postage stamp is based on the Sandham painting, which in students’ minds may confer the image with special legitimacy. (Why else would the postal service choose to feature it?) Help students establish that these two images provide different versions of the same event. Because Sandham’s painting benefits from artistic advances in portraying perspective and depth, some students will judge it to be the more accurate of the two. Part of developing historical judgment is resisting what appeals to the eye, and learning that vividness and artistic realism are no substitute for truthfulness.

请学生们解读他们所看到的景象。他们是否能发现列克星顿绿地上交战双方在外貌、姿态或组织结构上的差异？学生们会注意到一些共同点——例如树木、建筑物、列队行进的部队——以及一些矛盾之处，例如民兵是逃跑了还是坚守阵地。一些学生会尝试编造故事来调和这些图像，而另一些学生则会认为其中一幅图像是真实的，而另一幅是错误的。

Ask students to interpret what they see. Do they detect differences in appearance, posture, or organization between the combatants on Lexington Green? Students will notice some consistencies—a tree, buildings, troops arrayed in a line—as well as some contradictions, such as whether the Minutemen fled or held their ground. While some students will try to create stories that reconcile the images, others will assume that one image is accurate and the other not.

此时，向学生介绍杜利特尔版画和桑德汉姆绘画的创作日期，提醒他们这些事件发生在1775年。帮助他们理解这一新信息的重要性。随着我们与真实事件的距离越来越远，人类的记忆会发生什么变化？将学生分组，让他们研读两份原始文献（资料2.4、2.5），以验证或重新评估他们对引导性问题的看法。

At this point, introduce into the discussion the dates of the Doolittle engraving and the Sandham painting, reminding students that the events took place in 1775. Help them to mine the importance of this new information. What happens to human memory the more distant we become from actual events? Organize students into groups to examine the two written primary source documents (Sources 2.4, 2.5) with the aim of confirming or reevaluating their positions on the guiding question.

为了评估学生对视觉文献的解读能力，请他们思考美国革命前夕的另一起事件——波士顿惨案的图像。利用斯蒂芬·明茨在优秀的“数字历史”（Digital History）网站（http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/revolution/revolution_art.cfm）上发布的“探索2”（Exploration 2），让他们对比保罗·里维尔著名的1770年版画、1770年的一幅石版画和1868年的一幅石版画。哪一幅最准确地描绘了波士顿惨案？视觉上的准确性和历史上的准确性有何不同？

To assess students’ reading of visual documents, ask them to consider images from another event in pre-Revolutionary America, the Boston Massacre. Using Stephen Mintz’s “Exploration 2” on the excellent “Digital History” website (see http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/revolution/revolution_art.cfm), consider Paul Revere’s famous 1770 engraving alongside a lithograph from 1770 and another from 1868. Which depicts the Boston Massacre most accurately? How do visual accuracy and historical accuracy differ?

情景二（1小时课程）：重点关注资料来源。本情景旨在引导学生重视通常出现在文献末尾的信息——即文献的作者及其撰写背景。初学者往往会忽略或轻视这些信息。而历史学家则会立即着重研究这些信息，并常常将其作为后续分析的框架。

Scenario 2 (1 Hour Lesson). Focus on sourcing. This scenario teaches students to privilege the information that typically appears at the end of a document—information about who wrote a document and the circumstances of its composition. Novices typically skip this information or give it little heed. Historians, on the other hand, zoom in on it immediately, often using it as a framework for their ensuing analysis.

首先阅读教科书中的这段文字（资料来源 2.7）。这段摘录为您提供了一个绝佳的机会，可以教学生如何精读，并关注文字如何传达情感。请他们追踪民兵在这段简短文字中的转变过程：从“饱受战火蹂躏的农民”（暗指爱默生的《康科德颂》）到“叛乱者”（教科书作者为什么要给这个词加引号？引号的含义是什么？），最终成为“新英格兰的爱国者”。请他们思考这本教科书的书名。这里呈现的叙事方式与书名之间有何关联？诸如此类的问题能够引导学生超越信息本身，更深入地理解教科书的意义。这有助于他们将教科书视为另一种历史资料，它同样承载着某种视角，反映了特定的观点。

Begin with the textbook account (Source 2.7). This excerpt provides you with an excellent opportunity to teach your students how to read closely and to focus on how words convey feeling and emotion. Ask them to track how the Minutemen undergo a metamorphosis in this short paragraph, moving from “embattled farmers” (an allusion to Emerson’s “Concord Hymn”) to “rebels” (Why would the textbook author put this word in quotes and what do they signify?), only to emerge as “patriots of all New England.” Ask them to think about the title of this textbook. What is the relationship between the kind of narrative presented here and the book’s title? Questions like these sensitize students to reading their textbooks for more than the information they present. It helps them understand their textbook as another kind of historical source, one that also carries a perspective and reflects a particular point of view.

向学生介绍资料 2.4和2.5（根据他们的阅读水平，您可以选择使用以下资料）：（改编或使用原始文献）。提供关于文献来源的明确指导，解释历史学家在研究文献内容之前，会先询问文献的作者、创作背景以及文献创作与所描述事件之间的关系。典型的问题包括：谁撰写（或创作）了这份文献？作者的视角是什么？作者为什么要写这份文献？这位作者可信吗（例如，作者撰写这份文献会得到什么好处或损失什么）？请参阅工具2.2，其中包含针对本课特定文献量身定制的问题。

Introduce students to Sources 2.4 and 2.5 (depending on their reading level, you can choose to use the adapted or the original documents). Provide explicit instruction about sourcing by explaining that historians, even before they study the substance of a document, ask questions about a document’s author, the circumstances of its creation, and the relationship between a document’s creation and the event it describes. Typical questions include: Who wrote (or created) this document? What is the author’s perspective? Why did the author write this? Is this author trustworthy (e.g., what does the author stand to gain or lose by writing this)? See Tool 2.2 with questions tailored to the particular documents in this lesson.

学生完成此工具后，请回到课本摘录，评估其中关于民兵“坚守阵地”的说法。这一说法与两份分别来自对立双方的文件相比，是否站得住脚？为了了解学生对资料来源的推理能力如何发展，请他们解释在评估民兵“坚守阵地”这一说法时，哪些资料来源最可信，哪些资料来源最不可信。这将有助于您评估学生是否能够引用原始资料、将其置于特定语境中并加以佐证。

After students have completed this Tool, return to the textbook excerpt and evaluate its claim that the Minutemen “stood their ground.” How does this claim hold up compared to what two documents, written from opposing sides, say? To see how students’ reasoning about sources develops, ask them to explain which sources are the most and least trustworthy in evaluating the claim that the Minutemen “stood their ground.” This will help you assess whether students can source, contextualize, and corroborate primary documents.

或者，给学生两份他们之前没看过的资料：埃兹拉·斯泰尔斯的文件（资料 2.6）和杰里米·利斯特的摘录（资料 2.8）。让他们比较这两份资料，重点关注信息来源如何影响人们对信息可信度的认知。斯泰尔斯究竟是如何获得这些信息的？这些信息在他收到之前经过了多少人之手？我们能确定吗？利斯特记录的事件与实际事件发生之间相隔了多长时间？利斯特在事件发生这么久之后才记录下来，他的动机可能是什么？

Alternately, give students two sources they have not seen: the Ezra Stiles document (Source 2.6) and the excerpt from Jeremy Lister (Source 2.8). Have them compare the two documents, focusing on how sourcing information informs notions of trustworthiness. How, exactly, did Stiles get his information? How many hands did this information pass through before it reached him? Can we know for sure? How much time has passed between the event Lister records and when the actual events happened? What might be Lister’s motivation for recording these events so long after they occurred?

情景三（2-3小时课程）：神话如何变成历史？本课将引导学生完成情景一中描述的分析和讨论环节，并重点关注情景二中描述的史料来源。然而，与情景一要求学生完成详细阐述史料可信度要素的最终项目不同，本情景的最终成果是学生探索各种使神话渗入历史记录的因素。

Scenario 3 (2–3 Hour Lesson). How does myth become history? For this lesson, lead students through the analysis and discussion rounds described in Scenario 1, and the focus on sourcing described in Scenario 2. However, rather than asking students to produce a final project in which they detail elements that make a source credible, this scenario culminates in a project in which students explore the various forces that allow myth to creep into the historical record.

在学生讨论他们认为哪些资料最可靠、哪些最不可靠之后，请他们指出可靠和不可靠资料的特点。不可靠资料的动机是什么？这些资料从其不准确之处能获得什么好处？这些不准确之处对哪些受众有吸引力？关于列克星顿事件的某些故事是如何流传下来的？哪些版本可能被记录下来，哪些版本不太可能？提醒他们最初的引导性问题（“列克星顿绿地之战真的是一场战斗吗？”）以及邮票上描绘的民兵英勇对抗英军的形象。现在，请他们完成一个最终项目，例如一篇短文或口头报告，详细阐述促成神话转化为历史的因素和力量。

After students discuss which sources they found most and least reliable, ask them to pinpoint the qualities of reliable and unreliable sources. What were the motives of the unreliable sources? What did these sources stand to gain from their inaccuracies? To which audience did such inaccuracies appeal? How did certain stories about the events at Lexington get passed down? Which versions were likely to be recorded, and which were unlikely? Remind them of the original guiding question (“Was the battle at Lexington Green really a battle?”) and of the notion portrayed in the postage stamp that the Minutemen stood tall against British troops. Now, ask them to complete a final project such as a short essay or oral presentation that details the elements and forces that help turn myth into history.

资源和工具

Sources and Tools

来源：阿莫斯·杜利特尔 (Amos Doolittle) 1775 年所绘《列克星顿战役，1775 年 4 月 19 日》，公共领域图片，http://images.nypl.org/? id=54426&t=w

Source: The Battle of Lexington, April 19th, 1775, by Amos Doolittle, 1775, public domain image, http://images.nypl.org/?id=54426&t=w

 

 

资料来源：亨利·桑德汉姆著《自由的诞生》，1886年，http://www.mce.k12tn.net/revolutionary_war/lexington.gif

Source: Birth of Liberty by Henry Sandham, 1886, http://www.mce.k12tn.net/revolutionary_war/lexington.gif

 

 

来源：美国邮票，1925年，http://hubpages.com/hub/US-Postage-Stamps-1925

Source: U.S. Postage Stamp, 1925, http://hubpages.com/hub/US-Postage-Stamps-1925

 

 

资料来源2.4：巴克日记（改编版）

SOURCE 2.4: BARKER DIARY (ADAPTED)

来源：1775 年 4 月 19 日的条目，出自英国陆军军官约翰·巴克中尉的日记；RH Dana, Jr.，《波士顿的英国军官》，《大西洋月刊》，39，1877，389–401。

Source: Entry for April 19, 1775, from the diary of Lieutenant John Barker, an officer in the British army; R. H. Dana, Jr., A British Officer in Boston. The Atlantic Monthly, 39, 1877, 389–401.

（原来的）

(Original)

19日，下午2点，我们开始行军，趟过一条很长的浅滩，一直走到我们中间；走了几英里后，我们带上了三四个准备去报信的人；在我们行军路线上的一个叫列克星顿的小镇附近，大约五英里处，我们听说那里聚集了数百人，打算阻拦我们前进；下午5点，我们到达那里，看到大约200到300人聚集在镇中心的一片空地上；我们继续前进，虽然没有主动攻击的打算，但始终保持警惕；然而，当我们靠近他们时，他们开了一两枪，我们的士兵未经命令就冲上去，开火还击，把他们打得落花流水；他们中有几个人被打死，我们无法统计具体人数，因为他们躲到了墙后和树林里；我们第十轻步兵团有一名士兵受伤，其他人没有受伤。然后我们在公共用地集结，但遇到了一些困难，士兵们非常狂野，听不进任何命令；我们在那里等了相当长一段时间，最后才继续前往康科德。

19th. At 2 o’clock we began our march by wading through a very long ford up to our middles; after going a few miles we took three or four people who were going off to give intelligence; about five miles on this side of a town called Lexington, which lay in our road, we heard there were some hundreds of people collected together intending to oppose us and stop our going on; at 5 o’clock we arrived there and saw a number of people, I believe between 2 and 300, formed on a common in the middle of the town; we still continued advancing, keeping prepared against an attack th’o without intending to attack them; but on our coming near them they fired one or two shots, upon which our men without any orders, rushed in upon them, fired and put them to flight; several of them were killed, we cou’d not tell how many, because they were got behind walls and into the woods; We had a man of the 10th light Infantry wounded, nobody else hurt. We then formed on the Common but with some difficulty, the men were so wild they cou’d hear no orders; we waited a considerable time there, and at length proceeded on our way to Concord.

 

 

资料来源2.5：民兵的证词（经过修改）

SOURCE 2.5: MINUTEMEN’S DEPOSITIONS (ADAPTED)

资料来源：列克星顿，1775 年 4 月 25 日，纳撒尼尔·穆利肯、菲利普·罗素[以及 32 名男子][于 4 月 25 日由 34 名民兵在三名治安法官面前正式宣誓]；CC Sawtell。《1775 年 4 月 19 日：第一手资料集》（马萨诸塞州林肯：萨默塞特的 Sawtells，1968 年）。

Source: Lexington, April 25, 1775, Nathaniel Mulliken, Philip Russell, [and the 32 men] [Duly sworn to by 34 minutemen on April 25 before three justices of the peace]; C. C. Sawtell. The Nineteeth of April, 1775: A Collection of First Hand Accounts (Lincoln, MA: Sawtells of Somerset, 1968).

（原来的）

(Original)

我们，纳撒尼尔·穆利肯、菲利普·罗素（以及1775年4月19日在列克星顿绿地的其他32名男子）……均为成年，且均为米德尔塞克斯郡列克星顿居民……特此作证并声明，于本月19日凌晨一两点左右，我们得知……一支正规军正从波士顿向康科德进军……我们感到惊恐，并在我们连队的集合地点集合后，被我们的连长约翰·帕克暂时解散，并被命令随时准备响应鼓声。我们进一步作证并声明，大约早上五点，我们听到鼓声后，便向集合地点走去，很快发现一大群士兵正向我们行进。我们连队的一些成员正赶到集合地点，另一些成员已经到达。此时，连队开始分散，在我们背对士兵的时候……我们遭到他们的射击，我们许多人当场被杀或受伤。据我们所知，在我们遭到正规军射击之前，我们连队中没有人向他们开过枪。他们一直射击，直到我们全部逃脱。

We Nathaniel Mulliken, Philip Russell, (Followed by the names of 32 other men present on Lexington Green on April 19, 1775) … all of lawful age, and inhabitants of Lexington, in the County of Middlesex … do testify and declare, that on the nineteenth of April instant, about one or two o’clock in the morning, being informed that … a body of regulars were marching from Boston towards Concord … we were alarmed and having met at the place of our company’s parade, were dismissed by our Captain, John Parker, for the present with orders to be ready to attend at the beat of the drum, we further testify and declare, that about five o’clock in the morning, hearing our drum beat, we proceeded towards the parade and soon found that a large body of troops were marching towards us, some of our company were coming up to the parade, and others had reached it, at which time, the company began to disperse, whilst our backs were turned on the troops, we were fired on by them, and a number of our men were instantly killed and wounded, not a gun was fired by any person in our company on the regulars to our knowledge before they fired on us, and they continued firing until we had all made our escape.

 

 

资料来源2.6：STILES信件（已修改）

SOURCE 2.6: STILES LETTER (ADAPTED)

来源：摘自耶鲁学院院长埃兹拉·斯泰尔斯的日记，1775 年 8 月 21 日的条目；载于 FB Dexter 编辑的《埃兹拉·斯泰尔斯的文学日记》（纽约：查尔斯·斯克里布纳出版社，1901 年）。

Source: From the diary of Ezra Stiles, president of Yale College, entry for August 21, 1775; In F. B. Dexter, ed., The Literary Diary of Ezra Stiles (New York: Charles Scribner, 1901).

（原来的）

(Original)

在描述枪击事件的起因时，存在着某种模糊不清和含糊不清之处。皮特凯恩少校是一位好人，却投身于一场错误的事业。他至死都坚持认为，是殖民者先开的枪……他并没有说亲眼看到殖民者先开枪。如果他这么说，我也会相信他，因为他是一位正直且有荣誉感的人。他明确表示自己没有看到是谁先开的枪；但他仍然相信是农民先开的枪。他的叙述是这样的：他骑马来到他们面前，命令他们散开；但他们没有立即照做，于是他转身命令部队撤退，以便包围并解除他们的武装。就在这时，他看到墙后一个农民手里拿着一支枪，枪口闪了一下，但没有响起；紧接着，或者很快，两三支枪响了，他发现自己的马被击伤了，他身边的一个人也受了伤。他没有看到这些枪，但他相信这些枪不可能是自己人开的，所以毫不怀疑，断言这些枪是我们的人民开的。于是，他们便开始了进攻。国王军队的鲁莽行事，导致双方展开了一场混乱无序的全面交火，皮特凯恩对此无能为力；尽管他竭力向下挥舞长杖或长剑，示意停止射击。皮特凯恩少校亲自将此事告诉了普罗维登斯的布朗先生，布朗先生在战后几天被抓获，并被押往波士顿；塞申斯总督也曾向我讲述过此事。

There is a certain sliding over and indeterminateness in describing the beginning of the firing. Major Pitcairn, who was a good man in a bad cause, insisted upon it to the day of his death, that the colonists fired first…. He does not say that he saw the colonists fire first. Had he said it, I would have believed him, being a man of integrity and honor. He expressly says he did not see who fired first; and yet believed the peasants began. His account is this—that riding up to them he ordered them to disperse; which they not doing instantly, he turned about to order his troops so to draw out as to surround and disarm them. As he turned, he saw a gun in a peasant’s hand from behind a wall, flash in the pan without going off; and instantly or very soon two or three guns went off by which he found his horse wounded and also a man near him wounded. These guns he did not see, but believing they could not come from his own people, doubted not and so asserted that they came from our people; and that thus they began the attack. The impetuosity of the King’s Troops were such that a promiscuous, uncommanded but general fire took place, which Pitcairn could not prevent; though he struck his staff or sword downwards with all earnestness as a signal to forbear or cease firing. This account Major Pitcairn himself gave Mr. Brown of Providence who was seized with flour and carried to Boston a few days after the battle; and Gov. Sessions told it to me.

 

 

资料来源2.7：列克星敦教科书版本

SOURCE 2.7: TEXTBOOK VERSION OF LEXINGTON

资料来源：高中教科书：塞缪尔·斯坦伯格，《美国：自由人民的故事》（波士顿：阿林和培根出版社，1963 年）。

Source: From a high school textbook: Samuel Steinberg, The United States: Story of a Free People (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1963).

 

 

资料来源2.8：列表帐户

SOURCE 2.8: LISTER’S ACCOUNT

来源：列克星顿战役中最年轻的英国军官杰里米·利斯特少尉在 1782 年撰写的个人叙述。转载于 J. Lister，《康科德之战》（马萨诸塞州剑桥：哈佛大学出版社，1931 年）。

Source: Ensign Jeremy Lister, youngest of the British officers at Lexington, in a personal narrative written in 1782. Reprinted in J. Lister, Concord Fight (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931).

 

 

工具2.1 ：图像分析工作表​

TOOL 2.1: IMAGE ANALYSIS WORKSHEET

---

说明：请看列克星顿绿地战役的三张图片（资料2.1、2.2、2.3），并思考以下问题。

Directions: Look at the three images of the Battle at Lexington Green (Sources 2.1, 2.2, 2.3) and consider these questions.

工具2.2 ：采购工作表

TOOL 2.2: SOURCING WORKSHEET

---

请参阅约翰·巴克的日记条目以及纳撒尼尔·穆利肯和其他民兵的证词（资料 2.4和2.5）。

Refer to the diary entry of John Barker and the deposition of Nathaniel Mulliken and the other Minutemen (Sources 2.4 and 2.5).

1. 我们对每份文件的作者了解多少？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. What do we know about the author(s) of each of these documents?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. 这些信息会如何影响我们对作者的信任度？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
4. How does this information influence whether or not we believe the authors?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
5. 请解释这两种文件的体裁区别：日记与宣誓证词有何不同？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
6. Explain the difference between the genres of these two documents: How is a diary different from a sworn deposition?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
7. 关于巴克的日记，请列举一个你可能相信它的理由。再列举一个你可能不相信它的理由。
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
8. Regarding Barker’s diary, provide one reason that you might trust it. What is one reason you might distrust it?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
9. 巴克的日记写于哪一天？从巴克写日记到他所描述的事件发生，中间隔了多长时间？有什么办法可以完全确定吗？这篇日记会不会是几天后才写的？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
10. On what day was Barker’s diary entry written? How much time elapsed between Barker writing in his diary and the event he describes? Is there any way to be absolutely sure? Could this entry have been written days later?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
11. 关于穆利肯的证词，请列举一个你可能相信它的理由。又列举一个你可能不相信它的理由。
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
12. Regarding Mulliken’s deposition, provide one reason that you might trust it. What is one reason you might distrust it?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
13. 知道这份证词被送交了殖民地议会代表本杰明·富兰克林，这对你判断其可信度有何影响？
14. How does knowing that this deposition was sent to the colonial representative in Parliament, Benjamin Franklin, inform your judgment of its trustworthiness?

推荐资源

Suggested Resources

http://www.nps.gov/mima

http://www.nps.gov/mima

美国国家公园管理局的这个页面提供了“民兵”国家历史公园的各种资源，包括历史概述、照片和多媒体资料，以及教师的课程材料和专业发展机会。

This National Park Service page offers a variety of resources from “Minute Man” National Historical Park, including a historical overview, photographs and multimedia, and curricular materials and professional development opportunities for teachers.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/apr19.html

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/apr19.html

该页面由美国国会图书馆运营，提供丰富的原始资料，包括地图、个人文件以及列克星顿绿地冲突发生后所作的原始证词。

This page, run by the Library of Congress, offers rich primary source material, including access to maps, personal papers, and the original depositions taken after the conflict on Lexington Green took place.

http://www.lexingtonhistory.org/

http://www.lexingtonhistory.org/

该网站由列克星顿历史学会运营，提供列克星顿历史建筑的照片和描述，例如巴克曼酒馆，它最出名的是曾是民兵组织的总部。

This site is run by the Lexington Historical Society and offers photographs and descriptions of historic buildings in Lexington such as Buckman Tavern, best known as the headquarters of the Minutemen.

http://www.masshist.org/revolution/lexington.php

http://www.masshist.org/revolution/lexington.php

该网站由马萨诸塞州历史学会维护，提供了列克星顿和康科德事件的历史概述、相关的原始文献以及以美国革命的开端为重点的课程计划。

This site, maintained by the Massachusetts Historical Society, features a historical overview of the events at Lexington and Concord, supporting primary documents, and lesson plans focusing on the onset of the American Revolution.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?subcategory=74

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?subcategory=74

本页面由 Ashbrook 中心合作创建，收录了许多与美国革命爆发相关的原始文献，包括托马斯·盖奇将军和约翰·皮特凯恩少校的文献。

This page, created in partnership with the Ashbrook Center, features a number of primary source documents related to the onset of the American Revolution, including the documents of General Thomas Gage and Major John Pitcairn.

http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=679#01

http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=679#01

该网站由美国国家人文基金会、威瑞森基金会和美国国家人文信托基金会合作创建，其中包含一堂关于美国北方革命的课程。建议的第一项活动聚焦于“震惊世界的枪声”，并运用了多份一手资料。

This site, created by a partnership among the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Verizon Foundation, and the National Trust for the Humanities, features a lesson on the American Revolution in the North. The first of the suggested activities focuses on “The Shot Heard ’Round the World” and utilizes a number of primary sources.

http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/why/

http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/why/

本页面出自“历史思维很重要”网站，以列克星顿绿地战役为例，展示和解释历史阅读和思考，并收录了历史学家在分析原始资料时大声思考的过程。

This page, featured on the Historical Thinking Matters website, uses the case of the battle at Lexington Green to show and explain historical reading and thinking, and includes historians thinking out loud as they analyze primary source documents.

今天听来，这些话令人反感，仿佛是早已逝去的时代的遗物，鲜有人为此感到惋惜或浪漫化。它们所宣扬的态度与美国的理想背道而驰，许多读者得知这些话出自亚伯拉罕·林肯之口，定会感到震惊。这位撰写了《解放奴隶宣言》并在葛底斯堡发表过激动人心演讲的人，怎么会说出如此令人作呕的种族优越论呢？

Today these words sound offensive, a relic of bygone times that few mourn or romanticize. They broadcast an attitude that is anathema to American ideals, and many readers will be shocked to learn that they were uttered by Abraham Lincoln. How could the man who wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and the stirring words at Gettysburg be responsible for words that convey a racial superiority so distasteful to our modern ears?

这些言论与美国人对亚伯拉罕·林肯作为“伟大的解放者”的认知截然相反。它们促使读者接受对林肯的另一种看法：“白人至上主义者”。事实上，《Ebony》杂志编辑小勒罗内·贝内特（Lerone Bennett, Jr.）早在1968年就发表了一篇著名的文章，题为《亚伯拉罕·林肯是白人至上主义者吗？》。^贝内特声称，美国人眼中的林肯只是一个被美化的形象，而林肯实际上是一位白人至上主义者，尽管他的出发点是好的。他是一位保守派政治家，他的所作所为都出于政治需要，并通过种族主义笑话暴露了他的真实面目。

These words fly in the face of Americans’ understanding of Abraham Lincoln as the “Great Emancipator.” They prompt readers to embrace another vision of Lincoln: “White Supremacist.” In fact, Ebony magazine editor Lerone Bennett, Jr. made that very call in 1968 with a famous article asking, “Was Abe Lincoln a White Supremacist?”² Bennett claimed that Americans’ Lincoln was a feel-good creation, and that Lincoln was actually a White supremacist, albeit a well-intentioned one. He was a conservative politician who responded only to political necessity, and showed his true colors through racist jokes.

贝内特的文章促使学者们正视林肯的种族主义问题。随后，一场更深入、更广泛的讨论展开，著名历史学家们重新审视并认真思考林肯关于奴隶制和种族的观点。历史学家们不禁思考，这种矛盾（林肯既是《解放奴隶宣言》的起草者，又是白人至上主义的信奉者）究竟是源于一个多世纪后的评判，还是林肯在当时的人们看来也同样自相矛盾？对于1858年听到这些话的人来说，它们究竟意味着什么？

Bennett’s article prompted scholars to confront the question of Lincoln’s racism. A deeper and more extended conversation ensued, with eminent historians revisiting and seriously considering the question of Lincoln’s views on slavery and race. Historians wondered if this paradox (Lincoln as author of the Emancipation Proclamation and as believer in White supremacy) was a matter of judging the man more than a century after the fact, or whether Lincoln also appeared paradoxical to his contemporaries. What did these words mean to those who heard them in 1858?

历史学家致力于在林肯所处的时代背景下理解他的观点，这需要建立各种联系。林肯并非生活在一个真空之中；他的演讲和行动与他所处时代的种种细节紧密相连。“语境” （context ）一词源于拉丁语，意为“编织在一起”。历史语境化是指努力理解历史现象——演讲、人物、事件——在它们最初所处的时代背景下的意义，从而用它们自身的语境而非现代视角来理解它们。

Historians worked to understand Lincoln’s views in the context of his own time, and this required making connections. Lincoln did not live in a vacuum; his speeches and actions were deeply intertwined with the particulars of his world. The word context has Latin roots that mean “to weave together.” Contextualizing in history is about working to understand historical phenomena—speeches, people, events—as they existed in their original worlds in order to understand them on their own terms rather than through a modern lens.

我们无法将本章开头的这段话与其发表的场合（与斯蒂芬·A·道格拉斯就一个竞争激烈的参议员席位展开的辩论）、辩论地点（伊利诺伊州渥太华，一个反黑人情绪高涨的地方）、听众群体（大多支持道格拉斯，对林肯抱有怀疑）以及林肯和道格拉斯都并非以先知或道德家的身份，而是以候选人的身份争取选票这一事实割裂开来。我们也不能忽视道格拉斯引发这段对话的言论，以及林肯在本章开头摘录之后紧接着所说的话。语境化需要考虑诸多因素，从当时的意识形态到特定的词句序列。但无论如何，它都要求我们认识到历史文物和资料是存在于特定社会环境中的人类建构，因此，它们不能被视为可以独立存在的、无需解释的证据。

We cannot separate the words that began this chapter from the occasion on which they were uttered (a debate with Stephen A. Douglas for a fiercely contested senatorial seat); the location of this debate (Ottawa, Illinois, a hotbed of anti-Black sentiment); the kinds of people who heard the debate (largely supportive of Douglas and suspicious of Lincoln); and the fact that both Lincoln and Douglas addressed their audience not as prophets or moralists but as candidates courting votes. Nor can we ignore what Douglas said to spark this response, or the words Lincoln uttered that immediately follow the excerpt at the start of this chapter. The act of contextualizing requires considering a wide-ranging variety of factors, from the ideologies of the day to a particular sequence of phrases and sentences. But in all cases, it demands that historical artifacts and sources be recognized as human constructions that existed within a particular social world, and as such, cannot be considered as free-floating evidence that speaks for itself.

林肯是种族主义者吗？问题分析

Was Lincoln a Racist? Analyzing the Question

林肯是否是种族主义者这个问题绝非寻常。它将美国最受爱戴的偶像之一与其最令人憎恶的遗产和思想之一联系在一起。单是这个问题就足以引发激烈的争论，而要给出令人信服的答案绝非易事。

The question of whether Lincoln was a racist is no ordinary one. It links one of America’s favorite icons with one of its most reprehensible legacies and ideas. The question alone can elicit passionate responses, and answering it convincingly is neither easy nor quick.

首先，探寻一个人的真实信念并非易事。即便在最好的情况下，这对历史学家来说也并非易事——如何才能真正了解一个人的内心世界？此外，谁的一生不会改变想法呢？一个人今年表达的观点，是否意味着他明年仍然相信？其次，还有前后一致性的问题。一个人是非此即彼——种族主义者还是平等主义者？我们能否分辨一个人的观点是绝对的，还是模棱两可、犹豫不决或不确定的？

First there is the difficulty of uncovering a person’s sincere beliefs. Even in the best cases, this is not an easy task for the historian—how do you get inside a man’s mind? Moreover, who does not change his or her mind over a lifetime? Does expressing something one year mean that the speaker believes it the next? And then there is the matter of consistency. Is a man all or nothing—racist or egalitarian? Can we discern when a man is absolute in his views and when those views may be mixed, tentative, or uncertain?

关于“种族主义者”一词也引发了疑问，因为这个词在林肯时代并不存在。³使用这个词^是否不合时宜？我们是否以一种脱离历史的方式，将现代观念强加于过去？种族主义与当今的美国以及我们理解过去有着极其重要的关联。但是，用今天的语境来提出这个问题，会引发历史中的一个核心矛盾：虽然今天的关注点可能会促使人们进行历史研究，但它们不应掩盖或歪曲过去的真相。

Questions also arise about the term “racist,” a word that didn’t exist in Lincoln’s time.³ Is its use anachronistic? Are we imposing modern ideas on past situations in an ahistorical way? Racism has enormous relevance to today’s America and to understanding our past. But phrasing the question in present-day terms raises a central tension in history: While today’s concerns may prompt historical investigations, they should not swamp or distort the realities of the past.

尽管存在这些局限性，历史学家们仍然继续探究这个问题。⁴^为了理解其含义并揭示林肯的观点，他们努力在林肯言论的原始语境中进行分析。

Still, even given these limitations, historians have pursued the question.⁴ And to discern meaning and uncover Lincoln’s views, they strive to analyze his words within their original context.

资料来源

The Sources

哪些史料能够阐明林肯的种族观点？他留下了大量的文献资料。他笔耕不辍，留下了信件、笔记、备忘录、演讲稿、法律论证、政策声明以及其中许多文件的修订稿和草稿。^历史学家道格拉斯·威尔逊解释说：“林肯在其总统任期内，几乎对每一项重要事件，以及许多不太重要的事件，都以文字的形式作出了回应。^”

What sources illuminate Lincoln’s views on race? He produced a huge cache of documentary evidence. He wrote constantly and left behind letters, notes and memos, speeches, legal arguments, policy statements, and revisions and drafts of many of these.⁵ Historian Douglas Wilson explained that “[Lincoln] responded to almost every important development during his presidency, and to many that were not so important, with some act of writing.”⁶

此外，还有回忆录式的证词。林肯去世后，他十五年以上的法律合伙人威廉·赫恩登收集了许多认识林肯的人的故事，并撰写了这位昔日合伙人的传记。鉴于赫恩登与林肯私交冷淡，以及撰写这位遇刺总统传记所带来的经济利益，历史学家对这部传记持怀疑态度。尽管如此，赫恩登收集的故事仍然为了解林肯增添了新的证据。历史学家还可以查阅当时所有可用的原始资料来了解林肯（例如报纸、他人的文件、法律文书和判决书）。

Then there is the reminiscent testimony. After Lincoln’s death, William Herndon, his law partner for more than 15 years, collected stories from many who knew him. He then wrote a biography of his former partner. Historians are skeptical of this work, given the cool personal relationship he maintained with Lincoln, as well as the financial opportunities bound up with writing about the slain president. Nevertheless, the stories Herndon collected add to the evidence about Lincoln. Historians can also look at all the source material available from the time to understand Lincoln (e.g., newspapers, other people’s papers, legal briefs and decisions).

即便拥有如此丰富的原始资料，在种族问题上，要准确把握林肯的立场仍然十分困难。历史学家不得不将神话般的林肯与真实的林肯区分开来。林肯传记作者大卫·赫伯特·唐纳德将他描述为一个多面偶像，对不同的群体而言，“他既是共产主义者……又是素食主义者、社会主义者、禁酒主义者、绿背党支持者，也是‘立即建国’运动的倡导者。” ⁷由于林肯已成为美国理想的“核心象征”，历史学家必须努力区分真实的林肯与象征意义上的林肯。 ⁸他们数十年来一直在从事这项工作，并积累了大量的学术成果。

Even with this large pool of primary sources, it is hard to pin down Lincoln when it comes to race. Historians have had to disentangle the mythic Lincoln from the man. Lincoln biographer David Herbert Donald described him as a versatile icon, that for different groups “he was a Communist … also a vegetarian, a socialist, a prohibitionist, a greenbacker, and a proponent of Union Now.”⁷ Because Lincoln has become the “central symbol” of American ideals, historians have to work to distinguish the real Lincoln from the symbolic.⁸ They have been doing this work for decades and have produced a vast body of scholarship.

然而，“真正的”林肯仍然难以捉摸。历史学家称他为“令人费解的混合体”，同时代的人则认为他“沉默寡言”且“行事隐秘”。正因如此，林肯研究领域中一本备受赞誉的著作才被命名为《无人知晓的林肯》。 ⁹ 作者理查德·柯伦特指出，林肯研究文献中的某些主题颇具争议，他解释说：“证据错综复杂，相互矛盾，即使是同样公正且博学的学生，对证据的解读也存在分歧。” ¹⁰林肯关于种族和奴隶制的观点就是一个典型的例子。

Still, the “real” Lincoln remains elusive. Described as a “puzzling mixture” by historians, “reticent” and “secretive” by his contemporaries, it is with good reason that an acclaimed book in the Lincoln pantheon is called The Lincoln Nobody Knows.⁹ Author Richard Current described certain topics in the Lincoln literature as controversial, explaining that the “evidence is tangled in contradictions, and equally fair-minded and well-informed students disagree in their interpretation of it.”¹⁰ Lincoln’s views on race and slavery exemplify a tangled topic.

下文我们将探讨研究林肯思想的核心四份文献，以及一份有助于我们更全面地理解林肯言论的文献。这些文献涵盖了1841年至1863年这段时期，这段时期是美国历史上一个重大变革的时期。内战爆发前的三十年间，发生了纳特·特纳起义、威廉·劳埃德·加里森创办的报纸《解放者报》、旨在解决各领地奴隶制问题的立法、德雷德·斯科特案剥夺了黑人的公民权，以及从哈珀斯费里到“血腥堪萨斯”骚乱等一系列暴力事件。不同的群体采取了极端立场：一方面，废奴主义者呼吁立即废除奴隶制；另一方面，支持奴隶制的派别则称赞奴隶制是圣经认可的神圣制度。正是在这样的背景下，我们才能更好地理解这些文献。

We discuss below four sources that are central to the study of Lincoln’s views, and a fifth that can help put Lincoln’s words in perspective. These sources span the period 1841–1863, a time of significant change in American history. The three decades preceding the Civil War saw Nat Turner’s Rebellion, the birth of William Lloyd Garrison’s newspaper The Liberator, legislative acts meant to settle the question of slavery in the territories, the Dred Scott decision denying Blacks citizenship, and acts of violence from Harpers Ferry to the riots of “Bloody Kansas.” Different groups adopted extreme positions: On the one hand, the abolitionists called for an immediate end to slavery; on the other, pro-slavery factions praised slavery as a blessed institution sanctioned by the Bible. It is against this backdrop that these sources must be considered.

林肯-道格拉斯辩论。 1858年的林肯-道格拉斯辩论是政治史上最著名的事件之一。伊利诺伊州议员林肯向时任美国参议员斯蒂芬·道格拉斯发起挑战，要求进行一系列辩论。道格拉斯同意在伊利诺伊州的七个城镇与林肯辩论。 ¹¹这些辩论场面盛大，包括行进乐队、野餐、烟火和横幅——是19世纪民众的主要娱乐活动。每场辩论都遵循相同的模式：三个小时激动人心的演讲，期间穿插着人群的欢呼、笑声、嘲讽和掌声。 ¹²到场的记者撰写了报道，这些报道刊登在全国各地的报纸上，辩论吸引了全国的关注。

Lincoln-Douglas Debates. The 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates are one of the most famous events in political history. Lincoln, an Illinois state legislator, challenged incumbent U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas to a series of debates. Douglas agreed to debate Lincoln in seven Illinois towns.¹¹ The debates were elaborate events, complete with marching bands, picnics, fireworks, and banners—a major source of entertainment for the 19th-century crowds. Each debate followed the same format: three hours of rousing oratory punctuated by the crowd’s cheers, laughter, jeers, and applause.¹² The reporters in attendance filed stories that were printed in newspapers around the country, and the debates drew a national audience.

虽然林肯-道格拉斯辩论通常被写入历史教科书，但教科书的记载主要集中在……^人们只关注“外表和声音”，却很少关注所说的话或所表达的观点。13当时辩论的重大议题是什么？

While the Lincoln-Douglas debates are routinely included in history textbooks, their accounts focus on “appearances and voices,” with little if any attention paid to the words spoken or the ideas espoused.¹³ What were the great issues being debated?

奴隶制向西部领土的扩张是辩论的核心。19世纪50年代，密苏里妥协案被废除，该妥协案宣布北纬36°30′以北的领土永远禁止奴隶制。这一变革的缔造者道格拉斯支持领土主权，使得西部定居者可以自行决定在其所在地区实行奴隶制。新领土可以举行选举，决定其是否为蓄奴州或自由州。1854年的堪萨斯-内布拉斯加法案加剧了围绕西进运动和奴隶制的紧张局势，其中最暴力的事件是“堪萨斯流血事件”。在此背景下，历史学家一致认为，19世纪50年代是一个种族主义盛行的时代，在许多地方，肤色较深的人甚至被剥夺了人性。

The expansion of slavery into the Western territories was at the heart of the debates. In the 1850s, the Missouri Compromise, which declared territories north of the 36°30” latitude forever off limits to slavery, was repealed. Douglas, the architect of this change, supported popular sovereignty in the territories, making it possible for Western settlers to approve slavery in their region. New territories could hold elections to establish their status as slaveholding or free soil. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 escalated tensions over westward expansion and slavery, the most violent manifestation being “Bleeding Kansas.” Given this backdrop, historians agree that the 1850s was a time of virulent racism, when the very humanity of dark-skinned people was denied in many quarters.

“与白人平等”。第一份文件（资料来源3.1）摘自1858年8月21日在伊利诺伊州渥太华举行的第一次辩论，开篇道格拉斯声称林肯（以及“黑人共和党”）支持黑人的公民权和权利，包括投票权、担任陪审员的权利以及当选公职的权利。道格拉斯明确表示，他“赞成将公民权限制在白人男性”，并反对“任何形式的”黑人公民权。他还声称，林肯（与废奴主义者一道）认为“黑人生来就与白人平等”，并且“全能的上帝赋予了他们平等的权利”。

“The Equal of the White Man.” The first document (Source 3.1), an excerpt from the first debate in Ottawa, Illinois, on August 21, 1858, begins with Douglas’s claim that Lincoln (and the “Black Republican party”) supported Black citizenship and rights, including the right to vote and serve on juries and in elected office. Douglas established his own position as being “in favor of confining citizenship to white men,” and opposed to Negro citizenship “in any and every form.” He went on to claim that Lincoln (alongside the abolitionists) believed that the “Negro was born his equal” and was “endowed with equality by the Almighty.”

道格拉斯在现代读者熟悉的政治竞选背景下，将自己与挑战者进行了对比。虽然19世纪长达三小时的辩论对我们来说可能有些冗长，但我们能够理解竞选演说以及候选人为了赢得听众支持而精心斟酌言辞的做法。

Douglas set up a contrast between himself and his challenger in what is a familiar context to the modern reader: the political campaign. Although a 3-hour 19th-century debate may seem a bit much to us, we can relate to the campaign stump speech and candidates who calibrate their words to win audience approval.

历史学家埃里克·福纳称，指责共和党人亲黑人是19世纪50年代民主党人最常用的“政治武器”。 ¹⁴尤其是在西部，民主党押注将共和党与“黑人平等”联系起来就能赢得选举。然而，政治光谱两端的人都认为倡导黑人平等无异于政治自杀：支持这一纲领的选民寥寥无几。更普遍的是人们对黑人的仇恨和恐惧，这种情况不仅存在于蓄奴的南方，而是遍及全国各地。

Historian Eric Foner called charges that the Republicans were pro-Negro the 1850s’ most utilized “weapon in the Democrats’ political arsenal.”¹⁴ Especially in the West, the Democratic Party bet that linking the Republicans to “Negro equality” would win the Democrats the election. People on all sides of the political spectrum saw advocacy of Negro equality as political suicide: Not enough voters supported this platform. More common were feelings of hate and fear toward Blacks, and this held true in all regions of the country, not just in the slaveholding South.

在那个时代，“种族偏见几乎无处不在”，甚至有四个“自由州”不允许黑人进入其领土。 ¹⁵表示支持禁止奴隶制，甚至彻底废除奴隶制，并不等同于倡导黑人权利，更遑论平等。白人劳工既不想与奴隶劳动力竞争，也不想与自由黑人争夺有限的工作机会。在19世纪40年代，保持西部地区没有奴隶，更多地与自由土地党的政治纲领有关，而非出于反奴隶制的热情。自由土地党强调，辛勤工作和公平竞争是白人男性实现经济自我提升的关键。保持西部地区没有奴隶劳动力，就能确保这种“公平”竞争，并实现“勤奋和能力终有回报”的愿景。简而言之，那些投票反对在西部地区实行奴隶制的人，往往是出于自身利益，而非出于对奴隶制的道德顾虑。

This was an era when “racial prejudice was all but universal” and four “free” states wouldn’t even let Negroes into their territory.¹⁵ Evincing support for the prohibition of slavery, or even abolishing it altogether, did not equate to advocating Negro rights, let alone equality. White workers did not want to compete with slave labor nor compete with free Blacks for available jobs. Keeping the West free of slaves had more to do with the Free Soil Party’s political platform in the 1840s than it did with anti-slavery passion. Free Soilers emphasized hard work and fair competition as the key to economic self-improvement for White men. Keeping the Western territories free of slave labor would ensure this “fair” competition, and fulfill the promise of a land where perseverance and ability paid off. In short, the people who voted down slavery in the territories often did so based on self-interest, rather than moral qualms about slavery.

在第一份文件中，我们听到了斯蒂芬·道格拉斯对这种心态的关注。他的言论令人震惊和不安。很难想象，在这样一个世界里，“我赞成将公民权限制在白人男性，即欧洲出生和血统的男性，而不是赋予黑人、印第安人和其他劣等种族”这样的言论竟然能获得选票。但我们不能忘记参议院选举的结果。道格拉斯赢了。

In the first document, we hear Stephen Douglas’s attention to this mindset. His words jar and upset us. It is hard to imagine a world in which the words “I am in favor of confining citizenship to White men, men of European birth and descent, instead of conferring it upon Negroes, Indians and other inferior races” get votes. But we can’t forget the outcome of the Senate election. Douglas won.

我们从林肯的答复中可以听出他对这种意识形态氛围和背景的考量（资料来源3.2）。他刻意与道格拉斯无情地拉拢到自己阵营的那些“小废奴演说家”划清界限，并声明他不会干预已经存在的奴隶制。林肯将重点放在奴隶制向西扩张的问题上。这使得任何反对奴隶制扩张的选民，无论出于何种原因，都能支持林肯。正是林肯的这些举措促使历史学家和古典学家加里·威尔斯称赞林肯“以政治上可控的方式界定了奴隶制问题”。 ¹⁶ 林肯在阐述观点时所做的区分和限定，对于实现这一目标至关重要。

We hear Lincoln considering this ideological climate, this context, in his reply (Source 3.2). He carefully distanced himself from the “little abolition orators” whom Douglas ungraciously dumped in his corner, and stated that he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed. Lincoln focused on the question of slavery’s westward expansion. This allowed any voter against expansion of slavery, regardless of the reason, to give his support to Lincoln. It is moves like this one that prompted historian and classicist Garry Wills to credit Lincoln with “defining the issue of slavery in politically manageable terms.”¹⁶ Lincoln made distinctions and qualified his statements in ways critical to that accomplishment.

自然权利与政治权利。林肯最初否认他有意在种族间推行政治和社会平等，这番言论想必令听众松了一口气，并赢得了掌声。他承认种族间存在生理差异，并认为正是这些差异使得黑人和白人难以实现“完全平等”。在这一点上，他与道格拉斯的观点一致，即在这样的不利条件下，白人人口将占据优势地位。但林肯这番话的前提与道格拉斯的观点截然不同。

Natural Rights and Political Rights. Initially, Lincoln denied any desire to introduce political and social equality between the races, a message that must have drawn relief and applause from his audience. He acknowledged physical differences between the races and credited these with stacking the odds against a society where Blacks and Whites could share “perfect equality.” Here he marked himself in agreement with Douglas that, given such odds, the White population would have the superior position. But the contingency of Lincoln’s remarks stands in contrast to Douglas’s.

林肯在平等问题上采取了不同的策略，他不再强调社会和政治平等，而是强调自然权利和享受劳动成果的权利。他断言，在这些方面，黑人“与白人一样享有同等的权利”。社会权利、政治权利、自然权利、经济权利——所有这些不同类型的权利。林肯为什么要做出这些区分呢？

Lincoln took a different tack on the question of equality, away from social and political equality, toward natural rights and the right to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor. In these, he asserted, the Negro is “as much entitled … as the White man.” Social, political, natural, economic—all these different kinds of rights. Why did Lincoln make these distinctions?

当时的反黑人意识形态在一定程度上回答了这个问题。林肯构建了一种以黑人奴隶的人性为中心的意识形态，这与那些视奴隶为次等人的观点截然相反。在林肯的律师生涯中，他将抓住案件的核心问题称为“抓住问题的核心”。核心。”林肯在 1858 年对黑人所作表态的核心是，作为人，他们理应享有《独立宣言》中所述的自然权利。

The anti-Black ideology of the day partly answers this question. Lincoln crafted an ideology that focused on the humanity of the Black slave, in contrast to those who saw slaves as subhuman. In Lincoln’s law practice he called getting at the core issue in a case “getting at the nub.” The “nub” of Lincoln’s stated position on Blacks in 1858 was that as human beings, they were due natural rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

林肯对不同类型平等的区分伴随着含糊其辞和谨慎的措辞。虽然他承认两个群体之间存在生理差异，但在其他比较中却含糊其辞。他只认为他们在道德或智力方面“或许”存在差异。即使提出两个种族在道德和智力上是平等的可能性，也与他所处的时代主流观点截然相反。

Lincoln’s distinctions between kinds of equality are accompanied by hedging and careful language. While he does admit a physical difference between the two groups, he equivocates in his other comparisons. There is only “perhaps” a difference in moral or intellectual endowment. Even raising the possibility that the two races were morally and intellectually equivalent would go squarely against the prevailing winds of his day.

在现代人听来，林肯的这些特质和资历或许显得微不足道，甚至具有欺骗性，不过是一个政客为了击败对手而不择手段的伎俩。但就他所处的时代而言，他公开表达的思想比大多数白人（废奴主义者是一个重要的例外）都要进步。林肯在这些辩论中阐述的观点最终团结了共和党。^正如历史学家埃里克·福纳所指出的，共和党人

Lincoln’s distinctions and qualifications might seem trivial and even deceptive to the modern ear, the workings of a politico willing to say whatever was needed to best his opponent. But given his world, his publicly expressed ideas were more progressive than those of most other Whites (abolitionists being the significant exception). The views that Lincoln articulated in these debates would unify the Republican party.¹⁷ As historian Eric Foner notes, the Republicans

林肯的立场显然不如他那个时代的废奴主义那样激进，但他强调奴隶与生俱来的人性，这一点不容置疑，也是任何最终解放奴隶运动得以实现的必然逻辑。林肯始终关注民意和现行法律，在平等问题上既没有过于强硬，也没有做出过多让步。相反，他采取了一条能够让所有反奴隶制选民都加入他的道路。尽管他在1858年的参议院选举中落败，但他谨慎的策略最终使他在1860年当选总统。

Lincoln’s stance was obviously not as radical as the abolitionism of his day, but its focus on the shared humanity of the slave was non-negotiable and a logical necessity if any eventual emancipation were to be accepted. Always attentive to public opinion and existing law, Lincoln neither pushed too hard nor conceded too much with his stance on equality. Instead, he took a path that allowed anti-slavery voters of all stripes to join him. He might have lost a Senate election in 1858, but his careful path allowed him to be elected president in 1860.

致玛丽·斯皮德的信。这组文件中的第三份文件（资料来源3.3）将我们带回1841年，比林肯-道格拉斯辩论早了15年多。这是一封林肯写给他最亲密的朋友之一约书亚·斯皮德的同父异母妹妹的私人信件。这封信的风格和形式与林肯在参议院辩论中的公开讲话截然不同，它更多地展现了林肯作为政治家的一面，而非他朋友们所熟知的私生活。但如果我们仔细阅读，会发现它与林肯1858年关于奴隶人性的言论一脉相承。尽管如此，这封信中也包含一些令现代读者感到震惊的段落。

Letter to Mary Speed. The third document in the set (Source 3.3) takes us back to 1841, more than 15 years before the Lincoln-Douglas debates. It is a private letter Lincoln wrote to the half-sister of Joshua Speed, one of his closest friends. Different in style and form from Lincoln’s public words at the senatorial debates, it reveals little about Lincoln the politician and more of the private man known by his friends. But if we look closely, we see a consistency with his 1858 statements regarding the humanity of the slave. That said, this letter also includes passages that shock the modern reader.

信中描述了一次乘坐密西西比河轮船的旅程，船上有一群奴隶被沿河贩卖，“永远地与他们的童年故地、朋友、父母、兄弟姐妹分离，”林肯写道，“许多人甚至与他们的妻子和孩子分离。” 但随着信件的继续，它呈现出一种令人费解的对比，引发了关于其确切含义的争论。当林肯回忆起奴隶们被锁链紧紧捆绑在狭小空间里的景象时，他所感触的并非人类的苦难，而是人类的幸福。同样的场景，在任何废奴主义者看来都会激起愤怒和愤慨，却激励林肯写下了这样一段话，这段话可以被解读为“淡化了奴隶制的恐怖，暗示黑人有一种特殊的能力来应对奴役”。 ¹⁹

The letter describes a journey on a Mississippi riverboat on which a group of slaves were literally being sold down the river, “separated forever,” Lincoln writes, “from the scenes of their childhood, their friends, their fathers and mothers, and brothers and sisters, and many of them, from their wives and children.” But as the letter continues, it presents a perplexing contrast that has prompted debate about its exact meaning. As he recalled the spectacle of slaves chained together in close quarters, Lincoln was moved to remark not on human misery, but on human happiness. The same scene that would have provoked fury and outrage in any abolitionist inspired Lincoln to write words that can be read as “ameliorat[ing] slavery’s horror with an inference that blacks have a special capacity to deal with captivity.”¹⁹

然而，仔细审视之下，我们发现林肯对奴隶们快乐生活的描述，传达了一种信念，即奴隶与白人拥有共同的人性。奴隶们对自身处境的反应被描述为“一个很好的例子……让我们思考境遇对人类幸福的影响……[并且上帝]使人类最糟糕的境遇也变得可以忍受”。这样的表述或许无法消除现代读者对被描述为快乐开朗的奴隶的不适感。但若将其置于19世纪中期关于奴隶制和黑人的观念背景下考察，这些表述就显得意义重大了。

However, on closer inspection, we see that Lincoln’s description of the slaves’ happy activities communicates a belief that slaves shared a common humanity with Whites. The slaves’ response to their situation is presented as “a fine example … for contemplating the effect of condition upon human happiness … [and that God] renders the worst of human conditions tolerable.” Such phrases won’t still a modern-day reader’s discomfort over enslaved people described as happy and cheerful. But considered in the context of mid-19th-century ideas about slavery and the Negro, they are significant.

1830年以后，围绕奴隶制和西进运动的紧张局势日益加剧。威廉·劳埃德·加里森的废奴主义杂志《解放者》的出版，以及1831年纳特·特纳领导的奴隶起义，加剧了南北之间的分歧。废奴主义者的言论和对奴隶制的抨击，促使支持奴隶制的思想家和派别发展出各种理论来为奴隶制及其永久存在辩护。 ²⁰这些理论包括奴隶制实际上对奴隶有利，以及黑人在基因上与白人不同且劣于白人。林肯在1841年的信中既不认同上述任何一种立场，也不认同其他立场。相反，他宣称奴隶也是人，并指出奴隶制是造成“人类最恶劣境况”的罪魁祸首。

After 1830, tensions over slavery and westward expansion grew. Publication of The Liberator, William Lloyd Garrison’s abolitionist magazine, and Nat Turner’s slave rebellion in 1831 sharpened the divide between North and South. Abolitionist rhetoric and assaults on the institution of slavery propelled pro-slavery thinkers and factions to develop theories to justify the institution and its permanence.²⁰ These included arguments that slavery actually benefited its captives and that Blacks were genetically different and inferior to Whites. In his 1841 letter, Lincoln embraces neither stance. Rather, he declares slaves to be human beings and slavery responsible for “the worst of human conditions.”

斯皮德的信引发了其他问题。它表明，历史学家们仍在不断探究史料，试图揭示林肯的种族观，却鲜有直接的答案。由于林肯的言辞对奴隶的苦难漠不关心，人们可能会将其解读为冷酷无情，对奴隶制造成的惨重代价漠不关心。然而，在林肯研究专家菲利普·帕鲁丹看来，这恰恰表明我们需要提出更多问题。 ²¹林肯写信给居住在蓄奴州肯塔基的玛丽·斯皮德时，是否因为害怕冒犯她而不愿公开谴责奴隶制？林肯是否如他妻子所说，展现了他真实的本性——对最深切的感受避而不谈？或者，他是否真的认为，在“最恶劣的人类境况”下，黑人所遭受的苦难比其他人要少？帕鲁丹不禁思考，林肯对奴隶苦难的思考是否受到了听众或他自身隐私观念的影响。尽管如此，林肯的冷漠无情并不能改变他言辞背后的核心思想。他认为黑人也是人，奴隶制是一种残酷的制度。

The Speed letter raises other questions. It serves as an example of how historians continue to interrogate sources to uncover Lincoln’s views on race, while finding few prima facie answers. Because Lincoln’s words show little concern for slaves’ suffering, they can be read as callous and unconcerned with the human costs of slavery. However, to Lincoln scholar Philip Paludan, what this shows is the need to ask more questions.²¹ In writing to Mary Speed, a woman who lived in the slaveholding state of Kentucky, was Lincoln loath to rail against slavery for fear of offending her? Was Lincoln doing what his wife identified as his true nature—talking the least about what he felt the most? Or did he really believe that Blacks suffered less than others in “the worst of human conditions”? Paludan wonders if Lincoln’s musings on the slaves’ suffering were tempered by his audience or his own sense of privacy. Still, the question of Lincoln’s insensitivity doesn’t change the ideas undergirding his words. He considered Blacks as human and slavery as a cruel system.

殖民化。 1862年8月14日，林肯总统在白宫会见了一批自由黑人代表团，这是有史以来第一次邀请黑人到访白宫。林肯与他们握手，并发表了著名的“殖民化演说”（资料来源3.4）。这些事件同时发生令人费解。欢迎黑人进入白宫，是否与鼓励黑人大规模移民的信息相符？

Colonization. On August 14, 1862, President Lincoln addressed a delegation of free Black men, the first ever invited to the White House. Lincoln shook their hands and delivered his “Address on Colonization” (Source 3.4). The pairing of these factors is puzzling. Is welcoming Blacks into the White House consistent with a message of mass Black emigration?

殖民化。非裔美国人移民到其他土地——在本例中是中美洲——以建立一个与他们用强迫劳动、鲜血、汗水和泪水建立起来的社会截然不同的社会。我们怎能不将此视为最极端的种族隔离呢？

Colonization. The emigration of Black Americans to other lands—in this case, Central America—to create a separate society from the one they had built with their forced labor, blood, sweat, and tears. How can we judge this plan as anything but segregation at its most extreme?

自共和国诞生之初，殖民主义思想便已存在。效仿18世纪末英国在塞拉利昂的做法，美国殖民协会于1821年在非洲西海岸建立了利比里亚。19世纪30年代以前，殖民主义是“白人反奴隶制情绪的主要体现”，但黑人对这一政策的反对以及激进废奴主义的兴起改变了这一局面。然而，殖民主义仍然拥有支持者，在战争爆发前的几年里，它作为一种切实可行的政策受到了更多关注。 ¹⁸⁶¹年12月，林肯总统首次在国会发表讲话时，要求国会授权拨款实施一项殖民计划，国会随即拨款60万美元。

The idea of colonization had been around since the birth of the Republic. Following the British example in Sierra Leone in the late 18th century, the American Colonization Society founded Liberia on the west coast of Africa in 1821. Before the 1830s colonization was the “main embodiment of white anti-slavery sentiment,” but Black opposition to the policy and the rise of radical abolitionism changed that.²² However, colonization continued to have its supporters, and the years immediately before the outbreak of war saw increased attention to it as a practical policy. When President Lincoln addressed Congress for the first time in December 1861, he asked them to authorize funds to carry out a colonization plan and Congress responded by appropriating $600,000.

历史学家一致认为，殖民运动从一开始就充满了相互矛盾的目的。一些人支持殖民，因为他们认为这是黑人生活在一个公平社会中的唯一途径——他们认为白人对黑人充满敌意，平等权利和特权永远遥不可及。而对另一些人来说，殖民正如勒罗内·贝内特所说的“白人的梦想”，是一场旨在使美国及其领土摆脱黑人的运动。²³还有一些人则将殖民视为传播基督教理念并与遥远地区的人民建立经济联系的机会。

Historians agree that the colonization movement was riddled with conflicting purposes from its start. Some supported the idea because they saw it as the only way that Blacks could live in an equitable society—they judged White America so hostile to Blacks that equal rights and privileges would always be out of reach. For others, colonization was what Lerone Bennett called a “white dream,” a movement to make the United States and its territories free of Blacks.²³ Still others saw colonization as the opportunity to spread Christian ideals while forging economic ties with far-off populations.

林肯支持殖民化，但他对此的看法至今仍令历史学家们争论不休，困惑不已。²⁴他为何支持这项政策？林肯对殖民化的支持是否是一种“心理安全阀”，旨在安抚恐惧的白人，让他们相信解放奴隶的同时也会伴随着殖民化？²⁵或者，他是否反对种族融合，因此主张将获得自由的黑人迁走？在他的政治生涯中，他对殖民化的看法是否有所改变？

Lincoln supported colonization, but his views on it continue to divide and perplex historians.²⁴ Why did he support this policy? Was Lincoln’s support for colonization a “psychological safety valve” meant to reassure fearful Whites that emancipation would be accompanied by colonization?²⁵ Or was he against the races mixing and so advocated removing the freedmen? Did he change his mind about colonization during his political career?

哥伦比亚大学的埃里克·福纳认为，林肯在其任期内对殖民化的看法确实发生了变化，《解放奴隶宣言》是一个转折点。林肯最初支持一项与逐步解放计划相配合的殖民化方案，后来彻底放弃了这项政策。 ²⁶在其任期之初，林肯主张逐步解放奴隶，补偿奴隶主，并将此与殖民化相结合。在《解放奴隶宣言》颁布以及在海地附近的小岛伊尔阿瓦什（Île à Vache）进行的黑人殖民化实验失败后，他放弃了对这项政策的支持。林肯最终支持了第十三修正案，并将选举权扩大到黑人退伍军人——这表明他能够设想获得自由的黑人成为美国公民。他只花费了国会拨款60万美元中的3.8万美元，这也表明他不再支持殖民化政策。

Columbia’s Eric Foner argued that Lincoln’s views on colonization did indeed change during his administration, and that the Emancipation Proclamation was a turning point. Lincoln went from supporting a colonization program that accompanied a plan of gradual emancipation to abandoning the policy altogether.²⁶ At the beginning of his administration, Lincoln advocated the gradual freeing of slaves, compensating their owners, and coupling this with colonization. Following the Emancipation Proclamation and a failed experiment of Black colonization on Île à Vache, a small island near Haiti, he abandoned his support for the policy. Lincoln eventually endorsed the Thirteenth Amendment and extended the franchise to Black veterans—demonstrating that he could envision freedmen as American citizens. The fact that he spent only $38,000 of Congress’s $600,000 also shows that the colonization policy dropped from his favor.

林肯1862年8月的讲话（资料来源3.4）早于《解放奴隶宣言》，毫无疑问，历史学家们会继续争论其意图和含义。然而，这些讲话确实重申了先前文件中的一些重要观点，包括认为环境条件对人类发展至关重要（他使用了“系统性压迫”一词）。林肯在斯普林菲尔德的讲话中也比之前含糊其辞的表述（即黑人“或许”在智力上与他相当）走得更远，使用了“有才智的黑人”这一表述。即便如此，这篇讲话仍然激怒了许多黑人，不仅因为他们认为林肯否认了他们与白人一样是美国人，还因为他们理解其中一些言论（此处未列出）暗示黑人是内战的起因。 ²⁷

Lincoln’s words of August 1862 (Source 3.4) preceded the Emancipation Proclamation, and historians will, no doubt, continue to argue their intent and meaning. However, they do reiterate important ideas present in the previous documents, including a belief that conditions matter to human development (in his use of the term “systematically oppressed”). Lincoln also goes further than his equivocation at Springfield (that Blacks may “perhaps” be his intellectual equal) and uses the phrase “intelligent colored men.” Even so, the address made many Blacks angry, not only for what they saw as a denial that they were as American as the White man, but also for statements (not included here) they understood to mean that Blacks were the cause of the Civil War.²⁷

在内战爆发前的25年里，人们对殖民化的看法和立场发生了变化，而殖民化这一概念与奴隶制和废奴运动密切相关，正如围绕奴隶制的政治运动一样。尽管林肯的立场在早期几十年里或许是进步的，但与19世纪30年代以后激进的废奴主义立场相比，他的立场则显得保守。

Perspectives and stances regarding colonization, an idea intimately linked to slavery and abolition, changed in the 25 years leading up to the Civil War, just as political movements regarding the institution of slavery had. While Lincoln’s stance may have been progressive in earlier decades, it was conservative when compared with the post-1830s radical abolitionist stance.

“我们统治，黑人服侍。”乍看之下，宾夕法尼亚州北部白人作家约翰·贝尔·罗宾逊（资料来源3.5）1863年的这段话似乎与本次研究无关；毕竟，他既没有提及林肯，也没有提及他的政策。然而，罗宾逊的这段话为我们了解当时许多白人的想法、阅读和出版情况提供了一个视角，实际上为读者理解林肯的观点提供了背景。

“Us to Rule, and the Negroes to Serve.” On first reading, the 1863 words of John Bell Robinson (Source 3.5), a White author from the northern state of Pennsylvania, may seem irrelevant to this investigation; after all, they mention neither Lincoln nor his policies. However, Robinson provides a lens into what many Whites were thinking, reading, and publishing at the time, in effect providing the reader with a context for Lincoln’s own views.

在这份文件中，我们看到了一种种族主义意识形态，这种意识形态如此普遍，以至于人们既不认为它令人震惊，也不认为它荒谬绝伦。约翰·贝尔·罗宾逊声称，“黑奴制的优势”远不止于免费劳动力，更是一种神圣的义务。他写道，上帝的计划是让白人“统治，黑人服侍”，并警告说，篡改这些“神圣的安排”将导致永恒的堕落，即便不是世俗的奴役。罗宾逊还提到了殖民，断言任何尝试都将失败，因为黑人“不到五十年就会退回到异教和野蛮状态”。

In this document we see a racialized ideology that was so common it was considered neither shocking nor lunatic. John Bell Robinson claimed that the “advantages of Negro slavery” went beyond free labor and amounted to a sacred obligation. He wrote of God’s plan for White people “to rule, and the Negroes to serve,” warning that tampering with these “holy arrangements” would result in eternal degradation, if not worldly subjugation. Robinson also mentioned colonization, asserting that any attempt would fail, as Negroes “would fall back into heathenism and barbarism in less than fifty years.”

这位北方人的言论与林肯的言论形成鲜明对比，他断言黑人天生低人一等，没有能力统治自己。这些言论为理解林肯生活和演讲的时代背景提供了必要的语境。

This Northerner’s words provide a sharp contrast to Lincoln’s, by asserting that Blacks were inherently inferior and not equipped to rule themselves. They offer a necessary context for understanding the world in which Lincoln lived and spoke.

佐证资料。虽然资料3.1至3.4是历史学家们持续探讨林肯观点的重要依据，但其他一些文件和事件也反复出现。例如，林肯1862年8月写给《纽约论坛报》编辑霍勒斯·格里利的信经常被用来证明林肯只关心国家统一，而非废除奴隶制。林肯在信中写道：

Corroborating Sources. While Sources 3.1 to 3.4 are fixtures in historians’ ongoing conversations about Lincoln’s views, other documents and events appear repeatedly. For example, Lincoln’s August 1862 letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley is frequently used to show that Lincoln was concerned only with the nation’s unity, not with abolishing slavery. Lincoln wrote:

这段引文通常到此结束。但要理解林肯的情感，最好读读他接下来说的话：“我在此根据我对公务的看法阐述了我的目的；我无意改变我经常表达的个人愿望，即所有地方的人都能获得自由” ²⁸ [原文强调]。

Often the quote ends there. But to understand Lincoln’s sentiments, it is wise to read what he goes on to say: “I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free”²⁸ [emphases in original].

在讨论林肯的观点时，有两个事件反复出现：弗里蒙特将军于1861年8月30日发布的解放密苏里州奴隶的公告，以及戴维·亨特将军于1862年下令解放南卡罗来纳州、佐治亚州和佛罗里达州的奴隶。有人认为，林肯否决弗里蒙特的命令，表明他无意解放奴隶。也有人认为，这更多地体现了林肯作为政治家和律师的身份：弗里蒙特没有宪法赋予的权力发布这样的命令，而林肯甚至认为自己的权力也仅限于此。重要的是，他尊重自己作为法律执行者的地位，而非法律制定者的地位。此外，鉴于首席大法官坦尼领导的最高法院——该法院曾表现出对支持奴隶制和反黑人意识形态的友好态度——林肯对任何可能牵涉其中的举措都保持警惕。

Two events also appear repeatedly in a discussion of Lincoln’s views: General Fremont’s August 30, 1861, proclamation freeing the slaves in Missouri, and General David Hunter’s 1862 order to emancipate slaves in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. Some argue that when Lincoln overrode Fremont’s orders, he signaled a lack of intent to free the slaves. Others argue that this was more about Lincoln the politician and lawyer: Fremont didn’t have the constitutional power to issue such an order and Lincoln did not see even his own power as extending that far. What mattered here was his respect for his position as executor of the laws, not as writer of the same. Additionally, given Chief Justice Taney’s Supreme Court—a court that had shown itself friendly to both pro-slavery and anti-Black ideology—Lincoln was wary of any moves that might involve them.

对林肯进行历史语境分析并不能提供现成的答案。历史研究教导我们包容复杂性，而不是回避它。我们可以肯定的是，林肯的思想远比任何简单的标签都复杂得多。历史学家詹姆斯·莱克尔（James Leiker）探讨了林肯思想中的差异和矛盾——其他历史学家则会强调林肯散文中的细微差别和区别。29^一个绝对的标签，无论是种族主义者还是平等主义者，都无法概括历史证据。

Contextualizing Lincoln doesn’t provide pat answers. Historical inquiry teaches us to tolerate complexity, not shy away from it. One thing we can say for sure is that Lincoln’s ideas are more complex than any simple label. Historian James Leiker talks about the discrepancies and contradictions in Lincoln’s thought—other historians would emphasize the nuances and distinctions in Lincoln’s prose.²⁹ An absolute label, racist or egalitarian, doesn’t begin to capture the historical evidence.

更有意义的是，我们可以将林肯视为处于种族主义和平等主义这两个绝对概念之间的一个连续体。我们可以说，与他同时代的白人相比，林肯在当时并不算种族主义者，或者至少比其他人要温和得多。我们也可以说，像美国内战前的大部分白人（如果不是全部的话）一样，林肯实际上是一个种族主义者。

It’s more instructive to think about Lincoln as existing along a continuum between these two absolutes of racist and egalitarian. We could assert that compared to his White peers, Lincoln was not racist for his time, or certainly less so than others. We could also assert that like most if not all Whites in antebellum America, Lincoln was in fact a racist.

这就引出了我们问题的第二个答案。林肯时代的美国是一个种族歧视极其严重的社会。讨论废奴运动和奴隶制问题上的地区分歧，可能会让我们误以为种族歧视仅限于某个特定地区和人群。但从历史角度解读这些文献，我们会发现，在那个时代，黑人的人性被剥夺，人们用一些在今天看来令人作呕的理论来为奴隶制的野蛮行径辩护。林肯是种族主义者吗？这要视情况而定。他所处的时代是吗？是的，而且比我们想象的要严重得多。

Which leads us to the second answer to our question. Lincoln’s America was an incredibly racist place. Discussing the abolitionist movement and regional splits over slavery can lull us into a false sense that racism was confined to a particular region and population. But reading these documents historically reveals a world in which Blacks were denied their humanity, and people justified the barbarism of slavery with theories that repel us today. Was Lincoln a racist? It depends. Was his time? Yes, more than we would like to think possible.

为什么要教授林肯与种族问题？

Why Teach About Lincoln and Race?

认识到背景的重要性。我们无法避免对过去做出评判。每位历史老师都遇到过这样的学生：他们冲进来，兴奋地分享着“惊人发现”：“杰斐逊蓄奴！哥伦布割掉了土著人的耳朵！” 这些学生急于分享这些信息，证明他们过去的老师不仅遗漏了部分历史，还美化了这些人物，把恶棍塑造成了英雄。但是，我们应该如何评判过去及其人物呢？是用我们今天的标准，还是用他们那个时代的标准？虽然这个问题没有标准答案，但历史要求我们了解这两者之间的区别。

Learning That Context Matters. We can’t help judging the past. Every history teacher has had the student who rushes in to share the revelation, “Jefferson owned slaves! Columbus cut off the ears of natives!” Such students are eager to share this information that proves that their past teachers not only left out part of the story, they whitewashed these figures and turned knaves into heroes. But how should we judge the past and its actors? By our contemporary standards or by the standards of their day? While there is not one way to answer this question, history demands that we know the difference between the two.

林肯所处的世界是怎样的？与我们的世界截然不同，如此迥异，以至于如果我们像比尔和泰德那样去体验一次“精彩冒险”，可能会感觉自己像外星人。亚伯拉罕·林肯正是在这样一个陌生的世界里生活、演讲和领导。如果我们想要从历史的角度思考林肯的言论，就必须避免轻易下结论，并探究其历史背景。这些言论的背景和目的是什么？他的言论和思想与同时代人的言论和思想有何异同^？

What was Lincoln’s world like? Very different from our own, so different that we might feel like aliens if we were to take an “excellent adventure” Bill-&-Ted style. It was in this foreign world that Abraham Lincoln lived, spoke, and led. If we are to think historically about Lincoln’s words, we must resist easy judgments and ask questions about historical context. What were the setting and purpose of these words? And how do his words and ideas compare to those of his contemporaries?³⁰

对历史学家而言，语境是历史推理的核心。让学生了解林肯关于种族的观点和言论，能为他们提供绝佳的机会，让他们真正理解“语境化”的意义所在。

For historians, context lies at the epicenter of historical reasoning. Engaging students in Lincoln’s views and words on race presents them with powerful opportunities to learn what “contextualizing” is all about.

分析关于种族的观点。种族问题在我们的课堂上常常被一带而过或忽略。不可否认，种族对于理解美国历史至关重要——以种族之名犯下的罪行、为这些罪行辩护的意识形态、强化这些意识形态的制度等等，不胜枚举。种族主义影响着我们国家的发展历程以及我们民族的形成。这些文献旨在引导学生深入思考种族化的观点，并促使他们进行分析。

Analyzing Ideas About Race. Race is a topic too often glossed over or omitted in our classrooms. There is no denying that race matters to understanding the American past—the crimes that have been done in its name, the ideologies that justified those crimes, the institutions that reified those ideologies—the list goes on. Racism has influenced how our country has developed and who we have become. These documents engage students in thinking specifically about racialized ideas and prompt analysis of them.

了解到现在听起来冒犯的言论在其他时代可能被视为进步的，这对我们的学生来说是一个重要的教训：不要轻易想当然地认为你对某句话的理解与说话者的本意相同。有些学生不愿承认种族问题对美国研究的重要性，而另一些学生则对此不屑一顾。用不恰当的词语来形容种族主义，无异于本土种族主义的又一例证。深入探讨林肯的言论及其目的，能够帮助双方更好地分析这个既敏感又至关重要的话题。

Learning that statements that sound offensive to our ears could have been judged progressive in another time opens up an important lesson for our students: Don’t be too quick to assume that the meaning you ascribe to a statement is the same one the speaker intended. Some students are reluctant to acknowledge that race is important to the study of America. Others quickly dismiss an untoward word as just more home-grown racism. A focused consideration of Lincoln’s distinctions and purposes gives both groups practice in analyzing this volatile and necessary topic.

放慢学生的阅读速度。这些文献需要分析。它们要求学生放慢阅读速度，并注意用词和细微差别。例如，在与道格拉斯的辩论中，林肯用一个容易被忽略的“或许”一词，就为历史学家开启了一个充满可能性的世界。林肯是一位精于措辞的作家；仔细研读他的文字，能让学生明白限定词和区别对意义的重要性。如果学生只是浅尝辄止地阅读这些文献，而不去思考是谁在向谁陈述什么，他们就会错过历史背景的关键方面，也无法令人满意地回答问题。理解林肯意味着放慢速度，探究他为什么使用这个词而不是另一个词。这种对文本的细致关注，对于理解历史以及我们如何了解过去至关重要。

Slowing Down Student Reading. These documents demand analysis. They require that students read slowly and pay attention to word choice and nuance. In a single “perhaps,” an easily missed equivocation in the debate with Douglas, historians open up a world of possibilities. Lincoln was a careful wordsmith; examining his words is an opportunity for students to see how qualification and distinctions matter to meaning. If students read these documents on a surface level, without wondering who is presenting what to whom, they will miss key aspects of historical context and won’t be able to answer the question satisfactorily. Understanding Lincoln means slowing down and asking why he used one word and not another. This careful attention to text is central to understanding history and how we know what we know about the past.

挑战学生的误解。当学生们思考这些话语发表的时代背景时，他们对过去的错误认知便会受到挑战。尽管伊利诺伊州是北方的一个自由州，但种族优越论在皮奥里亚仍然盛行。学生们了解到，种族偏见并非仅限于南方，而是在南北战争前的整个美国都普遍存在。

Challenging Student Misconceptions. As students consider the world in which these words were uttered, flawed ideas about the past are challenged. Although Illinois was a Northern free state, racial superiority still played very well in Peoria. Students learn that racial prejudice was not limited to the South, but existed throughout antebellum America.

关于文献证据的误导性观点也将受到质疑。约翰·贝尔·罗宾逊的文献（资料来源3.5）并未提及林肯。学生们常常因此推断，这份文献与林肯的观点无关。^然而，罗宾逊的文献为我们了解当时人们的思考、阅读和出版情况提供了一个至关重要的视角。通过研读罗宾逊的文字，学生们将能够更好地理解林肯在19世纪50年代和60年代的观点光谱中所处的位置。

Misleading ideas about documentary evidence will also be challenged. John Bell Robinson’s document (Source 3.5) makes no mention of Lincoln. Students often infer that this makes it irrelevant to questions about Lincoln’s views.³¹ But Robinson provides a vital lens for what people of this time were thinking, reading, and publishing. By examining Robinson’s words, students will be better able to locate Lincoln on a spectrum of opinion in the 1850s and 1860s.

你会如何使用这些材料？

How Might You Use These Materials?

情景一（2-3小时课程）：林肯是种族主义者吗？引导学生参与“结构化学术争论”，让他们分析文献资料，以回答核心问题并得出合理的结论^。32

Scenario 1 (2–3 Hour Lesson). Was Lincoln a racist? Engage students in a “Structured Academic Controversy” where they analyze documents in order to answer the focus question and craft a warranted conclusion.³²

课程开始时，引用林肯1858年在斯普林菲尔德的讲话（资料3.2），但省略所有身份信息（说话者、年份、地点）。询问学生他们会如何描述这段文字，以及他们还想了解哪些信息。如果换成其他说话者、时间或地点，他们的描述还会一样吗？然后向他们展示身份信息。当他们发现这些话是林肯说的时，会感到惊讶吗？

Open the lesson with Lincoln’s words from Springfield in 1858 (Source 3.2), but omit any identifying information (speaker, year, place). Ask students how they would describe the passage and what else they want to know about it. Would they describe it the same way given any speaker, time, and place? Then share with them the identifying information. Are they surprised to find out that these are Lincoln’s words?

告诉学生他们将要探究的问题：林肯是种族主义者吗？回顾活动结构（工具 3.1）。将学生分成四人一组，每组分配两组，一组持 A 方观点（林肯是种族主义者），另一组持 B 方观点（林肯不是种族主义者）。分发包含文件分析表（工具 3.2 ）的资料包（资料3.1-3.5 ）。学生两人一组，阅读资料，查找并记录支持其立场的证据。他们还应记录在此过程中产生的任何问题。小组收集完支持其立场的证据后，四人一组重新集合。第一组分享他们的立场和支持证据，另一组倾听并复述该立场。然后交换角色。提醒学生，在这个倾听和复述的活动中，他们不是在辩论。之后，学生放弃各自的立场，讨论对这个问题的最佳答案，即由证据和学生在活动中带来的其他背景知识支持得最好的答案。

Tell students that they will be investigating the question, Was Lincoln a racist? Review the structure of the activity (Tool 3.1). Organize students into groups of four and assign one pair in each group Side A (Yes, Lincoln was a racist) and the other pair Side B (No, Lincoln was not a racist). Pass out document packets (Sources 3.1–3.5) with the document analysis chart (Tool 3.2). In pairs, students work through the documents, finding and recording evidence for their assigned position. They should also record any questions that arise during this process. After pairs have gathered evidence for their position, they will convene in groups of four. The first pair shares their position and the supporting evidence while the other pair listens in order to restate that position. Then reverse the roles. Remind students that in this listening and restating activity, students are not debating. After this, students give up their assigned positions and discuss the best answer to the question, that is, the one that is best supported by the evidence and other background knowledge students bring to the activity.

最后，要求学生独立撰写问题答案，并使用文献证据支持他们的答案。

Finally, ask students to write independent answers to the question, using documentary evidence to support their answers.

情景二（2-4小时课程）：在情景一的基础上，加入以下问题：我们应该如何评判过去？

Scenario 2 (2–4 Hour Lesson). Extend Scenario 1 by including the question, How should we judge the past?

将第二个核心问题纳入课程，让学生在讨论完关于林肯与种族的问题后思考这个问题。他们可以单独写一段来专门探讨这个问题，也可以将其融入到对第一个问题的分析中。

Include this second focal question in the lesson and have students consider it after they have addressed the question about Lincoln and race. They can write a separate paragraph explicitly addressing this question or include it in their written analysis of the first.

情景三（1 小时课程）。阅读理解：观察、实践、理解。运用示范和指导练习，教授学生如何将历史资料置于特定语境中理解。

Scenario 3 (1 Hour Lesson). Reading for context: see it, do it, know it. Use modeling and guided practice to teach students how to contextualize historical sources.

引入“林肯是否是种族主义者”这个问题，并解释道：“你们将尝试回答这个问题，但要做到这一点，你们必须仔细阅读历史证据。”确保每个学生都有一份资料3.2，然后示范历史学家如何阅读和分析这份文献。首先，大声朗读资料信息和导言，并随时停顿以引发问题和评论。然后，大声朗读文献内容，再次停顿以分析短语、质疑术语或表达疑问。这种示范的目的是“大声思考”，让学生看到历史学家在阅读过程中进行的积极提问和思考^。33

Introduce the question of whether Lincoln was a racist with the explanation, “You will be trying to answer this question, but to do so you must carefully read the historical evidence.” Make sure every student has a copy of Source 3.2, then model how a historian would read and approach this document. First read aloud the source information and head note, pausing to generate questions and comments. Then read the contents of the document aloud, again pausing to parse a phrase, question a term, or wonder aloud. The point of this modeling is to “think aloud,” and make visible for students the active questioning and thinking that historians do as they read.³³

通读完这份文献后，请列出你为了建立历史背景而提出的问题。这些问题包括：林肯当时在对谁讲话？他发表这篇演讲的目的是什么？当时还发生了什么其他事情？1858年伊利诺伊州的种族态度和法律状况如何？这些因素如何影响了林肯的用词和演讲内容？阅读本章的历史文献分析文章将有助于你回答这些问题。但是，也请列出你目前没有答案的问题；这些问题可以用来向学生展示，仔细阅读历史文献意味着要明确自己的知识盲点，并找出理解文献所需的信息。

After you work through the document, identify what questions you asked to establish the historical context. These will include: Who was he talking to? What were his purposes in making this speech? What else was happening at the time? What were existing racial attitudes and laws in Illinois in 1858? How might these factors have shaped Lincoln’s word choice and message? Reading this chapter’s historiographical essay will help you answer these questions. However, also include questions you don’t have answers for; these may be used to show students that closely reading a historical document means specifying your ignorance and identifying what you need to know to understand it.

将历史背景定义为“想象当时的场景”，并向学生展示一些引导他们理解文献背景的初步问题（工具 3.3）。阐明以下几点，以便进行背景分析：

Define historical context as “imagining the setting,” and show students some beginning questions to contextualize documents (Tool 3.3). Make the points that in order to contextualize:

1. 历史学家利用他们对当时当地情况的了解来帮助理解文献；
2. Historians use what they know about the time and place to help them understand the document;
3. 历史学家会提出他们不知道的事情以及他们还需要知道的事情，以便更全面地理解这份文件。
4. Historians ask questions about what they don’t know and what else they need to know, to try to more fully understand the document.

在您的指导下，学生可以运用您示范的阅读方法来帮助他们理解和分析文献3.3。您可以引导他们完成这个过程，例如提出“阅读历史文献时我们应该首先做什么？”之类的问题，并鼓励他们在文献的关键位置提出相关问题。完成指导练习后，学生可以作为家庭作业独立阅读和分析文献3.5。

With your guidance, students can use the reading practices you modeled to help them to understand and analyze Source 3.3. You can walk them through this process by asking questions such as “What should we do first when reading a historical document?” and prompting them to use contextualizing questions at key places in the document. After this guided practice, students can read and analyze Source 3.5 independently as homework.

资源和工具

Sources and Tools

资料来源3.1：道格拉斯的演讲（修改版）

SOURCE 3.1: DOUGLAS’S SPEECH (MODIFIED)

来源：摘自道格拉斯在 1858 年 8 月 21 日于伊利诺伊州渥太华举行的与林肯的第一次辩论中的讲话。引自 DE Fehrenbacher 编辑的《亚伯拉罕·林肯演讲与著作，1832–1858》（纽约：美国图书馆，1989 年），第 504–505 页。

Source: Excerpt from Douglas’s address to Lincoln in their first debate at Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858. Cited in D. E. Fehrenbacher, ed., Abraham Lincoln, Speeches and Writings, 1832–1858 (New York: Library of America, 1989), 504–505.

资料来源3.2：林肯对道格拉斯的回应（修改版）

SOURCE 3.2: LINCOLN’S RESPONSE TO DOUGLAS (MODIFIED)

来源：摘自亚伯拉罕·林肯于 1858 年 8 月 21 日在伊利诺伊州渥太华对斯蒂芬·A·道格拉斯的答复。引自 DE Fehrenbacher 编辑的《亚伯拉罕·林肯演讲与著作，1832–1858》（纽约：美国图书馆，1989 年），第 512 页。

Source: Excerpt from Abraham Lincoln’s reply to Stephen A. Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858. Cited in D. E. Fehrenbacher, ed., Abraham Lincoln, Speeches and Writings, 1832–1858 (New York: Library of America, 1989), 512.

资料来源3.3：致玛丽·斯皮德的信（修改版）

SOURCE 3.3: LETTER TO MARY SPEED (MODIFIED)

来源：摘自亚伯拉罕·林肯于1841年9月27日写给好友玛丽·斯皮德的信，引自《亚伯拉罕·林肯文集》（第一卷）。（安娜堡：密歇根大学数字图书馆制作服务部，2001年），第260页。可访问http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

Source: Excerpt from Abraham Lincoln’s letter to Mary Speed, a personal friend, September 27, 1841, cited in Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (Vol. 1). (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Digital Library Production Services, 2001), 260. Available at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

资料来源3.4：关于殖民化的演讲

SOURCE 3.4: ADDRESS ON COLONIZATION

资料来源：林肯于1862年8月14日在白宫向一群自由黑人发表的《殖民化演说》，引自《亚伯拉罕·林肯文集》 （第5卷）。（安娜堡：密歇根大学数字图书馆制作服务部，2001年），第371-372页。可访问http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

Source: Lincoln’s “Address on Colonization” delivered to a group of free Black men at the White House on August 14, 1862, cited in Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (Vol. 5). (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Digital Library Production Services, 2001), 371–372. Available at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

资料来源3.5：约翰·贝尔·罗宾逊

SOURCE 3.5: JOHN BELL ROBINSON

来源：摘自 JB Robinson，《奴隶制与反奴隶制的图景：从道德、社会和政治角度考虑黑人奴隶制的优势和黑人自由的好处》（费城，1863 年），第 42 页。

Source: Excerpt from J. B. Robinson, Pictures of Slavery and Anti-Slavery: Advantages of Negro Slavery and the Benefits of Negro Freedom Morally, Socially, and Politically Considered (Philadelphia, 1863), 42.

工具3.1 ：结构化学术争议方向​​

TOOL 3.1: STRUCTURED ACADEMIC CONTROVERSY DIRECTIONS

---

问：亚伯拉罕·林肯是种族主义者吗？

Question: Was Abraham Lincoln a Racist?

 

 

A面 Side A	B面 Side B
是的，林肯是种族主义者。 Yes, Lincoln was a racist	不，林肯不是种族主义者。 No, Lincoln was not a racist

1. 合作伙伴准备
   1. 寻找证据支持你的论点。构建你的立场。
2. Partners Prepare
   1. Find evidence to support your side of the argument. Craft position.
3. 立场陈述
   1. A 方以文本中的证据为佐证，阐述其立场。
   2. B面重申了A面的内容，并令A面满意。
   3. B 方以文本中的证据为佐证，阐述了他们的观点。
   4. A面重申了B面的内容，B面对此表示满意。
4. Position Presentation
   1. Side A presents their position using supporting evidence from the texts.
   2. Side B restates to Side A’s satisfaction.
   3. Side B presents their position using supporting evidence from the texts.
   4. Side A restates to Side B’s satisfaction.
5. 共识建立
   1. 放弃角色。
   2. 运用佐证材料，就该问题达成共识（或者至少澄清你们的分歧所在）。
   3. 思考这个问题：
      
      
      
      我们应该如何评判过去的人？
6. Consensus-Building
   1. Abandon roles.
   2. Build consensus regarding the question (or at least clarify where your differences lie), using supporting evidence.
   3. Consider the question:
      
      
      
      How should we judge people from the past?

工具3.2 ：SAC文件分析图​

TOOL 3.2: SAC DOCUMENT ANALYSIS CHART

共识：

CONSENSUS:

 

 

写作提示

WRITING PROMPT

林肯是种族主义者吗？

Was Lincoln a racist?

 

 

请用证据（引用、信息）来支持你的答案。如果你愿意，也可以对问题进行评价。

Use evidence (quotes, information) to support your answer. Include an evaluation of the question if you wish.

 

 

工具3.3 ：背景问题​

TOOL 3.3: CONTEXT QUESTIONS

---

1. 该资料是何时何地撰写或制作的？
2. When and where was this source written or produced?
3. 在撰写本文时，还有哪些其他事件发生？
4. What else was happening at the time this was written?
5. 它为何被制作出来？
6. Why was it produced?
7. 当时与现在有何不同？又有哪些相同之处？
8. What was different back then? What was the same?
9. 如果从当时的人们的角度来看，那会是什么样子？
10. What would it look like through the eyes of someone who lived back then?

推荐资源

Suggested Resources

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/aboutbiovideo.html

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/aboutbiovideo.html

该网站由亚伯拉罕·林肯历史数字化项目维护，拥有丰富的资料，重点介绍林肯担任总统之前的生平。资源包括解读性文章、教学计划、学术讲座视频、原始档案、地图和图片。用户可以按格式或主题浏览这些资源。

Maintained by the Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project, this site has a wealth of materials focused on Lincoln’s life prior to his presidency. Resources include interpretive essays, lesson plans, videos of scholarly lectures, primary source archives, maps, and images. These can be browsed by format or theme.

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/institute/lincoln.html

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/institute/lincoln.html

这个位于吉尔德·莱尔曼研究所的资源门户网站，汇集了关于林肯的教学和学习资源，其中包括大量珍贵且简明扼要的林肯学术论文和视频讲座。尤其值得关注的是线上展览“林肯与解放宣言”，该展览包含注释、关键文件的图片和文本。

This gateway to resources on teaching and learning about Lincoln, housed at the Gilder Lehrman Institute, includes invaluable (and brief!) scholarly essays on Lincoln and video lectures. Of special interest is the online exhibition “Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation,” which includes explanatory notes, and images and transcripts of key documents.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/alhtml/alhome.html

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/alhtml/alhome.html

林肯先生的虚拟图书馆

Mr. Lincoln’s Virtual Library

美国国会图书馆收藏了大量与林肯及其时代相关的文献、乐谱和纪念品。

The Library of Congress’s large collection of manuscripts, sheet music, and memorabilia regarding Lincoln and his times.

http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/index.html

http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/index.html

在马里兰大学的支持下，“自由民与南方社会项目”利用国家档案馆的文献，通过参与者的讲述，生动地展现了解放运动的戏剧性场面。其中，详尽的“内战期间解放大事记”（http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/chronol.htm）尤其值得关注。

Supported by the University of Maryland, the Freedmen and Southern Society Project uses documents from the National Archives to vivify the drama of emancipation through the words of its participants. Of special interest may be the detailed “Chronology of Emancipation during the Civil War” (http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/chronol.htm).

http://www.abrahamlincoln.org/

http://www.abrahamlincoln.org/

林肯研究所的这个主页直接链接到其六个网站，这些网站分别聚焦于林肯生平的不同方面。解读性文章和精选的原始资料使读者能够轻松地深入研究林肯的某个主题。

This home page for the Lincoln Institute links directly to its six websites focused on different aspects of Lincoln’s life. Interpretive essays and selected primary sources make it easy to pursue a Lincoln topic in depth.

http://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/emancipation/introduction.html

http://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/emancipation/introduction.html

由安纳伯格传媒制作的本次专业发展研讨会，探讨了林肯在废除奴隶制中所扮演的角色。研讨会将通过视频讲座、原始资料和引导性问题，引导参与者思考林肯关于非裔美国人和奴隶制的观点。

Produced by Annenberg Media, this professional development workshop explores Lincoln’s role in the ending of slavery. Participants are prompted to consider Lincoln’s beliefs on African Americans and slavery using a video lecture, primary sources, and guiding questions.

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/

这里提供由罗伊·P·巴斯勒领导的团队编辑的多卷本经典著作《亚伯拉罕·林肯全集》的在线可搜索版本。

Here, the multivolume classic The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited by a team led by Roy P. Basler, is available online in searchable form.

1892年夏天，本杰明·哈里森总统正全力以赴争取连任。7月21日，他发布公告，宣布设立一个新的全国性节日：“发现日”（参见资料4.1）。为了纪念克里斯托弗·哥伦布，学校、教堂和其他集会场所都应庆祝这一节日，并将他视为“进步与启蒙”的象征。一个多世纪后，哥伦布日成为美国仅有的两个以个人命名的节日之一（另一个是马丁·路德·金博士的诞辰纪念日）。

In the summer of 1892, President Benjamin Harrison was locked in a fierce campaign for reelection to a second term. On July 21, he issued a proclamation calling for a new national holiday: “Discovery Day” (see Source 4.1). To be observed in schools, churches, and other places of assembly, Discovery Day honored Christopher Columbus as a symbol of “progress and enlightenment.” Over a century later, Columbus Day is one of only two American holidays (along with the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) that honor an individual.

虽然前几代人将哥伦布视为一位无畏的探险家和勇于冒险的勇士，但如今的历史学家往往对他评价不高。柯克帕特里克·塞尔的《克里斯托弗·哥伦布与天堂的征服》将哥伦布的遗产描述为暴力、殖民主义、贪婪和种族主义的代名词。霍华德·津恩的《美国人民的历史》销量超过百万册，他将这位航海家描绘成一个一心只想在印度淘金的偏执狂。津恩笔下的哥伦布未能找到他所追求的财富，于是诉诸残暴，最终走上了贩卖人口的道路，他写道：“让我们以圣三位一体的名义，继续贩卖所有能卖的奴隶。” ^¹

While previous generations viewed Columbus as an intrepid explorer and courageous risk-taker, today’s historians tend to be less generous. Kirkpatrick Sale’s Christopher Columbus and the Conquest of Paradise describes Columbus’s legacy as one of violence, colonialism, greed, and racism. Howard Zinn, whose A People’s History of the United States has sold well over a million copies, casts the mariner as a monomaniacal fiend driven by the pursuit of gold in the Indies. Not finding the riches he sought, Zinn’s Columbus resorted to brutality and eventual human trafficking, writing: “Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold.”¹

唉，哥伦布近来境遇不佳。就像前几代人传唱的关于他“航行于蔚蓝大海”的童谣一样，历史学家对哥伦布的负面描述也深入人心。上世纪90年代，南达科他州和加利福尼亚州伯克利市甚至废除了哥伦布日，分别将其更名为“美洲原住民日”和“土著人民日”。

Alas, Columbus has not fared well of late. Like the rhyme about his sailing “the ocean blue” for previous generations, historians’ bleak portrait of Columbus has penetrated popular consciousness. South Dakota and the city of Berkeley, California, even abrogated Columbus Day in the 1990s, renaming it “Native American Day” and “Indigenous People’s Day,” respectively.

鉴于哥伦布的声望日渐下降，我们最近完成的一项研究中，高中历史系学生在阅读哥伦布日法令原文时感到愤慨也就不足为奇了。²^这些学生被要求阅读一系列文件，并将每份文件置于历史背景中进行分析。在阅读过程中，学生们讨论了他们认为这些文件的内容以及他们想到的任何其他关联。

Given Columbus’s falling stock, it is hardly surprising that in a recent study we completed, high school history students bristled when reading the original Columbus Day decree.² These students were asked to read a series of documents and to place each in historical context. As they read through the texts, students talked about what they thought the documents were about and any other associations that came to mind.

当讲到哈里森的“发现日”宣言时，一些学生立刻开始抨击哥伦布。雅各布是一名高中生，正在上美国历史AP课程，他是这样开始发言的：

When they reached Harrison’s “Discovery Day” proclamation, some students wasted no time getting down to Columbus-bashing. Jacob, a high school student in an Advanced Placement U.S. history class, began his comments thus:

此外，雅各布抱怨说，这份文件“赞扬哥伦布虔诚的信仰”。哥伦布“自称是真正的基督徒，但他同时也俘虏和折磨印第安人，所以他可能并不像这份文件里说的那样高尚。”当被问及是否还有其他想法时，雅各布回答说：“更糟糕的是，它竟然变成了一个我们应该敬仰的节日！”

Further, Jacob complained, the document “praises Columbus for his devout faith.” Columbus “claimed to be a true Christian, but he also captured and tortured Indians, so he wasn’t maybe as noble as this is having him be.” Asked if anything else occurred to him, Jacob responded: “And the fact that it’s becoming a holiday that we’re supposed to revere, that’s even worse!”

雅各布的反应在这群聪明伶俐、能言善辩的高中生中很常见。他凭借着已有的知识，直击探险家的要害，展现出一种在某些人看来或许是“批判性思维”的思考方式。毫无疑问，这的确是批判性的思考。

Jacob’s response was common among this group of bright, articulate high school students. Drawing on background knowledge, Jacob went right at the explorer, engaging in what some might view as “critical thinking.” Critical, without a doubt.

事实证明，哈里森总统的公告与1492年，甚至与哥伦布本人都关系不大。尽管雅各布才华横溢、口才出众，但他却错过了这份文件的真正含义。

President Harrison’s proclamation, it turns out, has little to do with 1492, or even Columbus himself. Capable and articulate as he was, Jacob had missed the document’s real story.

历史学家是如何解读它的？

How Did Historians Read It?

当被问及同一份文件的内容时，一群历史学博士生给出了截然不同的理解，他们列举了诸如以下几点：

Asked what the same document was about, a group of doctoral candidates in history saw it quite differently, citing such things as:

• “将英雄殿堂扩展到包括以前不受欢迎的人。”
• The “expansion of the heroic pantheon to include former undesirables.”
• “为了在城市中心赢得选票，竟然厚颜无耻地诉诸超级英雄。”
• A “shameless appeal to superheroes in order to gain votes in urban centers.”
• “战后美国泛白人主义的开端。” ³
• “The beginning of Pan-Whiteness in post-bellum America.”³

与高中生们不同，高中生们只关注哥伦布的名字，并且始终没有改变立场，而研究生们则将这份文件视为身份政治和传统选举活动的体现。事实上，历史学家们几乎没有提及哥伦布。为什么这两个群体会对同一份文本产生如此截然不同的解读呢？

Unlike the high school students, who alighted on Columbus’s name and never budged, the graduate students viewed the document as a reflection of identity politics and good old electioneering. In fact, the historians hardly mentioned Columbus at all. How was it that the two groups saw such different things in the same text?

最简单的解释是，这些历史学家只是更了解美国历史。这当然没错，但仅此而已。这些年轻的历史学家研究过诸如法国殖民者和突尼斯阿拉伯民族主义者之间的性别关系、巴黎围城战与德国统一的关系，以及阿里去世后伊斯兰教的教义分裂等课题，他们对美国历史上的这一时期并没有足以改变其文本解读的史实知识。然而，他们确实拥有一种解读文献的“历史方法”，一种对文献证据的重视，这种重视对于熟悉历史的人来说几乎是常识。这种重视为未经训练的读者打开了一个封闭的世界。

The easy answer would be to say that the historians simply know more American history. Obviously that’s true, but only to a point. Having studied such topics as gender relations among French colonialists and Arab nationalists in Tunisia, the relationship between the Siege of Paris and German unification, and doctrinal schisms in Islam after Ali’s death, the young historians possessed no factual knowledge of this time period in American history that would change their readings of the text. What they did possess, however, was a “historical approach” to the document, an orientation to documentary evidence that almost seems like common sense to those practiced in it. This orientation unlocks a world closed to untutored readers.

高中生们关注的是这份文献最显著的特征——克里斯托弗·哥伦布这个极具争议的人物及其在舆论场上的跌宕起伏——而历史学家们则采用了不同的方法。对他们而言，解读历史文献意味着将史料置于审判席上，要求它们揭示真相或谬误。诚然，历史学家们精通运用学科证据准则和论证规则。然而，他们的方法本身并不复杂。事实上，他们所做的一些最深刻的事情，恰恰也是最基本的。

While the high school students responded to the document’s most pronounced feature—the polarizing figure of Christopher Columbus and his changing fortunes in the court of public opinion—the historians employed a different approach. For them, reading a historical document meant putting sources on the stand and demanding that they yield their truths or falsehoods. To be sure, the historians were experts at employing disciplinary canons of evidence and rules of argument. Still, nothing about their approach was particularly complicated. In fact, some of the deepest things they did were also the most basic.

想想他们的开场白。当历史学家们坐下来研究这份文件时，他们的第一句话大概是：“好的，这是1892年。”

Consider their opening gambit. When historians sat down with the document, their first words were something along the lines of: “Okay, it’s 1892.”

这其实只是一个简单的举动——承认哈里森宣言并非凭空而来、飘渺不定的言论。对历史学家而言，这份文件是一件保存于特定时空的文物，是历史上独一无二的时刻。对他们来说，这一时刻并非指1492年，甚至也不是2002年，而是指1892年。

A simple move, really—a recognition that the Harrison proclamation was not a free-floating utterance echoing from the ether. To the historians, the document was an artifact located in a unique time and place, a moment in history unlike any other. For them, this moment was not about 1492, or even 2002. It was about 1892.

这就立即引出了一个问题：1892 年意味着什么？

Which immediately raises the question: What does 1892 mean?

哈里森总统的背景

President Harrison in Context

在历史学家看来，哈里森总统的公告与其说是关于哥伦布，不如说是关于1892年。因此，他们的研究重点集中在19世纪末，而非15世纪。哈里森为何要表彰哥伦布？他对这位探险家怀有某种个人情谊吗？哈里森是否视哥伦布为榜样？或者，这一举动背后是否隐藏着其他不为人知的原因？想必其中必有缘由。

To the historians, President Harrison’s proclamation was more about 1892 than it was about Columbus. Consequently, their questions focused on the late 19th century rather than the 15th. Why would Harrison have honored Columbus? Did he harbor some personal affinity for the explorer? Did Harrison consider Columbus a role model? Or was there something more to this move that doesn’t immediately strike the eye? Surely, there must have been some reason.

历史学家们集思广益，回忆起他们对那个时代历史背景的些许记忆（要知道，他们中没有一个人是美国历史专家）。事实上，他们大多数人只记得高中和大学本科概论课上学过的内容。在思考19世纪90年代的美国时，他们试图回忆起一些重大事件、主题和人物：进步时代、边疆的关闭、弗雷德里克·杰克逊·特纳、民粹主义、威廉·詹宁斯·布莱恩、“金十字架”演讲——这些都是任何一本高中教科书中都会提到的内容。但随着历史学家们对那个时期的持续讨论，他们最终不可避免地谈到了移民问题。这时，他们恍然大悟。

The historians brainstormed what little they could remember about the era’s historical context (recall that none was an expert in American history). Most, in fact, could remember only what they had covered in high school and undergraduate survey courses. In thinking about the United States in the 1890s, they tried to recall major events, themes, and people: the Progressive Era, the closing of the frontier, Frederick Jackson Turner, Populism, William Jennings Bryan, the “Cross of Gold” speech—the kinds of references found in any high school textbook. But as the historians continued to talk about the period, they inevitably arrived at the topic of immigration. When they did, light bulbs clicked on.

19世纪末，美国正经历一场翻天覆地的变革。前所未有的移民浪潮一夜之间改变了这个国家（参见资料4.4）。在1880年至1910年的30年间，1800万新移民涌入美国。他们是一群与众不同的移民——用当时的术语来说，他们是“斯拉夫人”、“阿尔卑斯人”、“希伯来人”、“伊比利亚人”或“地中海人”。他们大多来自欧洲，但并非此前大多数美国移民来自的欧洲。他们来自更东、更南的地方。他们肤色黝黑，说着陌生的语言。他们的信仰也与本土的新教徒截然不同^。

At the end of the 19th century, the United States was getting a makeover. Unprecedented waves of immigration transformed the country overnight (see Source 4.4). In the 30 years between 1880 and 1910, 18 million newcomers came to America’s shores. And they were immigrants of a different breed—in the terminology of the time they were “Slavs,” “Alpines,” “Hebrews,” “Iberics,” or “Mediterraneans.” They were from Europe, mostly, but not the Europe most American immigrants had come from previously. They were from farther east and farther south. They were swarthy and spoke strange languages. They worshipped differently from the indigenous Protestant majority.⁴

这些新移民中人数最多的是天主教徒。19世纪80年代初，美国约有30万意大利人，几乎全部是天主教徒。到1910年，这个数字已达到200万，而当时美国的总人口为9200万。随着意大利人融入此前三十年间形成的爱尔兰裔美国人社群，城市天主教徒逐渐成为一股足以左右选举的政治力量。尽管他们的数量庞大且不断增长，但他们仍然是一个饱受歧视的少数群体。

The most numerous of these new arrivals were Catholics. At the beginning of the 1880s, there were about 300,000 Italians in the United States, almost all of them Catholic. By 1910 that number had reached 2 million out of a population of 92 million Americans. As the Italians joined the Irish American community that had formed during the previous three decades, urban Catholics became a political bloc with the potential to swing elections. But though their numbers were strong and growing, they remained a much-maligned minority.

整个 19 世纪，天主教徒都遭到攻击，被视为非美国的“天主教徒”，被指责对罗马的忠诚超过了对美国的忠诚。内战前兴起的“一无所知”运动，其数十名成员进入国会，该运动的成立很大程度上是为了“抵制罗马教会的阴险政策和所有其他外国影响” ^⁵（参见资料 4.6）。

Throughout the 19th century, Catholics were attacked as un-American “papists,” accused of being more loyal to Rome than to the United States. The Know-Nothing movement that sprang up before the Civil War and sent dozens of its members to Congress was founded in large part in order “to resist the insidious policy of the Church of Rome and all other foreign influence”⁵ (see Source 4.6).

天主教徒无论走到哪里都面临偏见和怀疑，在学校和工作场所尤其如此。反对天主教移民的人士中不乏知名人士，例如电报发明者塞缪尔·F·B·莫尔斯和宗教领袖、哈丽雅特·比彻·斯托的父亲莱曼·比彻。事实上，莫尔斯曾撰写一篇题为《外国阴谋：美国自由的阴谋》的小册子，警告美国新教徒，梵蒂冈主教及其在美国的代理人——爱尔兰和意大利移民——正密谋控制他们。

Catholics faced prejudice and suspicion everywhere they went, most egregiously in schools and at the workplace. Opponents of Catholic immigration included well-known figures like Samuel F. B. Morse, inventor of the telegraph, and Lyman Beecher, a religious leader and father of Harriet Beecher Stowe. Morse, in fact, penned a tract titled “Foreign Conspiracy against the Liberties of the United States,” which warned Protestant Americans of a plot to control them hatched by the Vatican bishops and their American agents—Irish and Italian immigrants.

当他们的孩子在公立学校遭受欺凌，被迫接受带有新教倾向的课程时，天主教徒便创建了独立的教会学校体系作为回应。尽管天主教学校没有获得公共资金，但它们与公立学校的显著区别依然存在：它们使用天主教版圣经而非钦定版圣经，授课教师通常为神职人员，而且为了方便移民学生，教学语言往往是外语。因此，天主教学校被描绘成反美主义的温床。

When their children were harassed in the public schools and subjected to a Protestant-leaning curriculum, Catholics responded by creating separate systems of parochial schools. But even though the Catholic schools received no public money, they remained visibly different from public schools: They used a Catholic bible rather than the King James version, classes were often led by members of the clergy, and instruction was frequently in foreign languages for the benefit of the immigrant pupils. As a result, Catholic schools were portrayed as breeding grounds of anti-Americanism.

在职场上，情况也大同小异。像许多19世纪的移民一样，这些天主教新来者往往极度贫困，甘愿接受更低的工资。因此，他们被指责拉低了美国本土工人的收入水平。当罢工导致城市工厂停工时，工厂主经常雇用天主教徒充当罢工破坏者，为他们提供临时工作，但这反而进一步加剧了他们在本土工人眼中的污名化。无论他们是爱尔兰人、意大利人还是其他族裔，天主教徒常常被灌输一种观念：他们不属于这里。

In the workplace the story was much the same. Like many 19th-century immigrants, the Catholic newcomers were often desperately poor and willing to work for reduced wages. Consequently, they were scorned for driving down the earning power of American-born workers. When strikes shut down urban factories, owners frequently turned to Catholics as strikebreakers, providing them with temporary employment but further stigmatizing them in the eyes of the native-born. Whether they were Irish, Italian, or some other ethnic origin, Catholics often got the message that they did not belong.

不出所料，天主教徒渴望提升自身的社会和经济地位，并加班加点地表达他们的爱国情怀。许多天主教徒，尤其是意大利人和葡萄牙人，大力宣扬他们与哥伦布——这位新大陆的发现者和虔诚的天主教徒——之间的联系。1878年《康涅狄格天主教报》的一篇社论简洁明了地指出：没有人比这位伟大而高尚的人——虔诚、热忱、忠贞的天主教徒……克里斯托弗·哥伦布——更值得“铭记和感激”。 ⁶

Not surprisingly, Catholics were eager to improve their social and economic standing, and worked overtime to express their patriotism. Many Catholics, particularly Italians and Portuguese, promoted their connection to Columbus, discoverer of the New World and a devout Catholic. An 1878 editorial in the Connecticut Catholic put it succinctly: No one was more deserving “of grateful remembrance than the great and noble man—the pious, zealous, faithful Catholic … Christopher Columbus.”⁶

为了进一步提升自身形象，美国天主教徒设立了哥伦布纪念日，以他的名字命名学校和医院，并寻求教皇正式册封他为圣人。圣母大学在其主楼委托创作了十二幅壁画，以纪念“天主教徒哥伦布”。1882年，也就是哈里森总统宣布封圣的十年前，康涅狄格州纽黑文的天主教徒创立了哥伦布骑士团，该骑士团最终发展成为美国最大的泛天主教兄弟会组织。骑士团成员认为，作为哥伦布的天主教后裔，他们“理应享有我们信仰之人做出如此伟大发现所应享有的一切权利和特权”。因此，尽管出身不同、习俗迥异，天主教少数群体仍然利用他们与这位著名且至今仍受人爱戴的探险家的联系，既以此来构建泛天主教的团结，也以此来展现他们真正的美国身份（参见资料4.2^和4.3 ）。

To further their image, American Catholics created a feast day in Columbus’s honor, named schools and hospitals after him, and sought his official canonization by the Pope. The University of Notre Dame commissioned twelve murals in its Main Building honoring “Columbus the Catholic,” and in 1882, 10 years before Harrison’s proclamation, Catholics from New Haven, Connecticut, founded the Knights of Columbus, which eventually became the nation’s largest pan-Catholic fraternal organization. Its members believed that as Catholic descendants of Columbus, they were “entitled to all the rights and privileges due such a discovery by one of our faith.”⁷ Thus, despite disparate national origins and different customs, the Catholic minority drew on their connection to the famous and still-beloved explorer both as a means of creating pan-Catholic unity and to show how American they really were (see Sources 4.2 and 4.3).

19世纪60年代中期，纽约人举办了以哥伦布为主题的庆祝活动。旧金山的意大利裔居民于1869年庆祝了他们的第一个“发现日”，费城居民于1876年在费尔蒙特公园竖立了哥伦布雕像。早在1892年颁布公告之前，圣路易斯、波士顿、辛辛那提和新奥尔良等地就已将哥伦布的庆祝活动列入日程。因此，当本杰明·哈里森宣布1892年10月21日为“发现日”时，他并非在开创什么新事物。相反，他是在认可当时已有的众多庆祝活动，以此肯定全国各地天主教徒的基层努力。托马斯·J·施莱雷斯指出，对于天主教徒而言，哥伦布已成为“一个前所未有的移民时代的美国民族圣人” ^。

In the mid-1860s New Yorkers hosted Columbus-themed festivities. San Francisco’s Italians celebrated their first Discovery Day in 1869, and Philadelphians erected a statue of Columbus in Fairmount Park in 1876. Well before the 1892 proclamation, celebrations of Columbus were already on the calendar in St. Louis, Boston, Cincinnati, and New Orleans. And so, when Benjamin Harrison proclaimed October 21, 1892, “Discovery Day,” he wasn’t creating anything new. Rather, he was sanctioning the many celebrations already in place, according recognition to grassroots efforts by Catholics around the country. According to Thomas J. Schlereth, for Catholics, Columbus had become “an American ethnic saint in an era of unprecedented immigration.”⁸

这份公告也带有政治意味。哈里森当时正面临着一场关乎政治生死的战斗。通过正式承认哥伦布，他试图争取更多新选民的支持。因此，“发现日”与其说是英雄崇拜，不如说是行之有效的党派政治手段。哈里森公开承认哥伦布，是他向一个特殊利益群体——城市天主教徒——发出的精明政治呼吁，他认为这个群体有能力左右选举结果，使他获胜。

The proclamation had a political angle, too. Harrison was engaged in a battle for his political life. By formally recognizing Columbus, he sought to bring legions of new voters into the fold. Thus, “Discovery Day” may have been less about hero worship than tried and true party politics. Harrison’s public recognition of Columbus was an astute political appeal to a special-interest group—urban Catholics—whom he believed had the power to swing the election in his favor.

这是一场充满曲折的选举，现任总统哈里森与前总统格罗弗·克利夫兰展开角逐。克利夫兰是内战后首位当选总统的民主党人，但在1888年的连任竞选中败给了哈里森，尽管他以微弱优势赢得了普选。四年后，这两位对手再次展开连任之争。无论是现任总统还是前总统，都并非绝对的胜算。

It was an election with many strange twists, pitting the incumbent Harrison against Grover Cleveland, himself a former president. After becoming the first Democrat elected to the office since the Civil War, Cleveland lost his 1888 reelection bid to Harrison, despite narrowly winning the popular vote. Four years later, the same two opponents were locked in a battle for reelection. Neither the sitting president nor the former leader was a runaway favorite.

由于克利夫兰的民意支持率回升，以及第三方候选人詹姆斯·B·韦弗的参选，哈里森在传统上支持共和党的中西部地区面临着一场艰苦的选战。为了拿下这些州以及东部城市，哈里森和他的共和党盟友决定全力争取移民选票。

Thanks to Cleveland’s resurgent popularity, and third-party candidate James B. Weaver, Harrison faced an uphill battle in the traditionally Republican Midwest. Looking to secure those states, along with the Eastern cities, Harrison and his Republican allies decided to go all out in their pursuit of the immigrant vote.

在中西部，他们积极争取斯堪的纳维亚裔和德裔美国人的支持，而在东部，他们则争取爱尔兰裔和意大利裔美国人的支持。为了吸引那些经常接受母语教育的少数族裔美国人，哈里森公开倡导地方政府对公立学校和教会学校的控制权。为了争取爱尔兰裔天主教徒的支持，共和党人组织了爱尔兰裔美国人保护关税联盟和爱尔兰裔美国人共和党联盟，并在1892年的共和党纲领中加入了支持爱尔兰自治的条款——这无疑是一个具有象征意义的举动。虽然对哥伦布的认可旨在吸引所有天主教徒，但它尤其针对意大利裔美国人，因为他们自来到新大陆以来，就一直将克里斯托弗·哥伦布视为自己的民族英雄。

In the Midwest they courted Scandinavian- and German-Americans, as well as the Irish and Italian groups in the East. To appeal to ethnic Americans who were often taught in their mother tongue, Harrison openly advocated local control of public and parochial schools. To appeal to Irish Catholics, Republicans organized the Irish-American Protective Tariff League and the Irish-American Republican League, inserting an endorsement for Irish home rule in the 1892 Republican Platform—a symbolic gesture if there ever was one. While recognition of Columbus was an appeal to all Catholics, it particularly targeted Italian-Americans, who had been celebrating Cristoforo Colombo as their own for as long as they had been in the New World.

最终，哈里森的“发现日”庆祝活动在投票前不到三周举行。尽管时机恰当，但此举仍不足以确保哈里森的胜利。克利夫兰以压倒性优势重返白宫。

In the end, Harrison’s “Discovery Day” was celebrated less than 3 weeks before the voters went to the polls. Despite its timing, the move was not enough to secure Harrison’s victory. Cleveland was returned to the White House in a landslide.

尽管“发现日”未能帮助哈里森连任，但它本身却取得了成功。在哥伦布日当天，全国各地开展了一系列爱国活动，其中一项后来成为学校一项经久不衰的传统：弗朗西斯·贝拉米撰写的效忠誓词。1892年的“发现日”，一千万名小学生自豪地宣誓效忠美国，无论他们的宗教信仰或国籍如何。虽然这一做法更多的是象征意义而非实质意义，但在移民们渴望展现爱国情怀的时代，它却引起了强烈的共鸣。对于那些被指控为梵蒂冈外国代理人的人来说，这一点尤为重要。效忠誓词很快便成为课堂上的日常仪式。

Even though “Discovery Day” failed to produce Harrison’s second term, it proved to be a success in its own right. A slate of patriotic activities accompanied celebrations of Columbus Day across the nation, including one that would become an enduring school ritual: the Pledge of Allegiance, written by Francis Bellamy. On Discovery Day, 1892, 10 million schoolchildren proudly swore their loyalty to the United States, regardless of religion or national origin. While the practice was more symbolic than substantive, it resonated powerfully at a time when immigrants sought to display their patriotism. This was especially true for those facing the charge of being foreign agents of the Vatican. The pledge soon became a daily classroom fixture.

尽管其他“发现日”活动，例如《哥伦布日之歌》，并未像誓词那样经久不衰，但对哥伦布的纪念活动却一直延续至今。1905年，科罗拉多州州长杰西·F·麦克唐纳宣布设立第一个官方的非百年纪念哥伦布日，其他州也纷纷效仿。三十年后，在哥伦布骑士团的敦促下，富兰克林·D·罗斯福总统和国会将哥伦布日定为联邦假日，并将官方庆祝日期改为10月12日。

Although other Discovery Day activities didn’t share the pledge’s staying power, including the “Song of Columbus Day,” celebrating Columbus certainly did. In 1905, Colorado Governor Jesse F. McDonald declared the first official noncentennial Columbus Day, a practice taken up by other states. Thirty years later, at the urging of the Knights of Columbus, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress made Columbus Day a federal holiday, moving the official celebration to October 12.

谜题、问题与历史进程

Puzzles, Questions, and the Process of History

许多学生初次接触哈里森宣言时，往往只关注1492年，而忽略了这份文件是在400年后才出现的。将哈里森宣言置于1892年的背景下，会改变读者接下来探索哥伦布日故事的方式。

When they first encounter the Harrison proclamation, many students become so fixated on 1492, they never notice that this document appeared 400 years later. Putting Harrison’s declaration in the context of 1892 changes a reader’s next steps in exploring the story of Columbus Day.

研读“发现日”公告的历史学家们想要解开这个历史谜团。他们想知道哈里森的公告是否有先例，发现日是否引发了反对或反天主教情绪的反弹。他们好奇其他州是否在联邦政府发布公告之前就已将10月21日定为假日，如果是，这些州的天主教人口是否众多。最后，他们想知道这一事件是如何以及何时从一项公告演变为全国性庆祝活动的。

The historians who read the Discovery Day proclamation wanted to understand this historical puzzle. They wanted to know if there was a precedent to Harrison’s declaration, whether Discovery Day had ignited opposition or anti-Catholic backlash. They were curious to know if other states had made October 21 a holiday before the federal declaration, and if so, whether those states had large Catholic populations. Finally, they wanted to know how and when the event had gone from a proclamation to a national celebration.

在对这份文献进行历史性思考时，历史学家最终走上了一条与高中生截然不同的道路。学生们回顾了他们已知的关于哥伦布的知识，并重复着政治正确的口号，而历史学家则发现自己面对的是谜题和疑问，是那些尚未探索和未知的领域。因此，他们被迫进行更具批判性、更具创造性和更具历史性的思考。

In thinking historically about the document, historians ended up going down a different path from the high school students. While the students revisited what they already knew about Columbus and repeated politically correct slogans, historians found themselves dealing with puzzles and questions, the unexplored and the unknown. As a result, they were challenged to think more critically, more creatively, and more historically.

最终，历史学家们发现了新的信息——不仅涉及移民和身份政治，也涉及哥伦布不断演变的遗产。无论今天人们持何种立场，在19世纪末，美国人对哥伦布的看法几乎一致地持积极态度。理解了这一点，学生们就不太可能仅仅用当下的视角来解读对哥伦布的纪念活动。通过将哈里森的公告等文献置于历史背景中，一个全新的世界便会展现在我们面前——一个充满未解之谜和看待历史新视角的世界。

In the end, the historians uncovered new information—not only about immigration and identity politics but also about Columbus’s evolving legacy. Whatever positions they may have today, in the late 19th century Americans held a uniformly positive view of Columbus. Understanding that, students are less likely to interpret celebrations of Columbus solely through the lens of the present. By putting documents like Harrison’s proclamation into context, a new world opens up—one filled with unanswered questions and new ways of looking at the past.

为什么要教授“探索日”？

Why Teach About “Discovery Day”?

这是一个教授如何理解历史文献的机会。许多学生仅仅因为哥伦布的名字出现在“发现日”文件中就止步不前，而忽略了其他内容。而历史学家则不同，他们阅读文献时首先会将其置于特定的时间和地点。他们会先探究文献的来源和背景，询问其作者是谁、发表于何处、何时出版以及当时的社会热点问题。通过提出这些问题，历史学家能够更好地理解文献的意义及其作者的真实动机。

An Opportunity to Teach About Understanding Sources in Context. Many students are so blinded by Columbus’s name in the Discovery Day document that they never get past it. Historians, on the other hand, begin their reading by situating a document in place and time. They begin by “sourcing” and “contextualizing” a document, asking who wrote it, where it appeared, when it was published, and what the burning issues of the day were. By asking such questions, historians develop a better understanding of a document’s significance and the real motives of its author.

以“发现日”宣言为例，许多学生援引20世纪对哥伦布航行的解读来批判哈里森的宣言。他们不可避免地忽略了这份文件签署于1892年这一事实，而这一事实引发了一系列问题：公众人物为何会在特定时间发布宣言？教授“发现日”相关内容，可以帮助学生将文件置于特定的时间和地点进行理解。这可以向他们展示，培养历史思维习惯将如何自然而然地引导他们关注文件的创作背景。

In the case of the Discovery Day proclamation, many students drew on 20th-century interpretations of Columbus’s voyage to critique Harrison’s proclamation. Inevitably, they overlooked that the document was signed in 1892, a fact that invites a host of questions about why public figures issue proclamations when they do. Teaching about Discovery Day provides an opportunity to help students situate documents in time and place. It can show them how developing historical habits of mind will instinctively point them to the context of a document’s creation.

探索历史用途的机会。历史的用途多种多样；同一个历史人物或事件在不同的时期可能被用于不同的目的。当新的信息出现时，这种变化就会发生，从而需要重新评估历史。有时，政治和文化发展的变迁也会促使我们重新审视之前的解读。就“发现日”而言，这两种力量都在发挥作用。一方面，当今的学术界对哥伦布的批判比19世纪甚至20世纪更为严厉。另一方面，虽然现代对哥伦布的纪念活动被认为对原住民缺乏尊重，但在1892年，这却是向当时饱受歧视的城市天主教徒传递信息的一种方式。

A Chance to Explore the Uses to Which History Is Put. History is constantly being put to various uses; the same historical figure or event may be used for different purposes at different times. Such changes can occur when new information comes to light, producing the need for reevaluation. At other times, shifts in political and cultural developments make us look anew at our previous interpretations. In the case of Discovery Day, both forces are at work. On one hand, present-day scholarship is more critical of Columbus than it was in the 19th or even 20th centuries. On the other, while modern celebrations of Columbus are seen as insensitive to native peoples, in 1892 they were a way of reaching out to the maligned urban Catholic.

一个教授历史变迁的机会。学生们常常认为，他们出生的世界格局就是一切的本来面目。很难想象，在那个时代，天主教徒曾面临持续不断的歧视和不忠的指控。如今，新教徒和天主教徒之间的区别几乎无关紧要，除非涉及到堕胎或同性婚姻等问题。但即便在这些问题上，天主教徒的立场也并非铁板一块：他们的立场与其他宗教信徒的立场有相当大的重叠。19世纪美国天主教徒担心自己受到罗马教廷的指示，这种担忧似乎只是一些对公共生活影响甚微的极端团体的臆想。然而，直到1960年，总统候选人约翰·F·肯尼迪仍然不得不为自己辩护，反驳有关他的天主教信仰使他不适合担任总统的指控（资料来源4.7）。一次对 19 世纪 90 年代的考察，有助于学生了解美国从一个勉强容忍外来者的新教国家，发展成为一个拥有多种宗教信仰的多元文化国家，其历程有多长。

A Chance to Teach About Change over Time. Students often assume that the layout of the world into which they are born is the way things have always been. An America in which Catholics faced constant discrimination and charges of disloyalty is hard to imagine. The distinctions between Protestant and Catholic rarely matter today, except as they touch on issues like abortion or same-sex marriage. But even here, the Catholic vote is hardly monolithic: There is considerable overlap between their stances and those held by Americans from other religions. The 19th-century fear that American Catholics were receiving marching orders from Rome seems like the stuff of wacko fringe groups with little influence on public life. Still, as late as 1960, presidential hopeful John F. Kennedy was obliged to defend himself against charges that his Catholicism rendered him unfit to be president (Source 4.7). An excursion into the 1890s helps students understand how far America has come in its journey from being a Protestant country that faintly tolerated outsiders to a multicultural nation with a wide range of religious faiths.

与今日的联系。 “探索日”展现了总统竞选纲领如何应对美国的人口结构剧变，预示了一种如今已成为政治格局中常态的策略：争取不同选民的支持。哈里森的竞选活动揭示了政治家为何要争取来自不同背景——种族、民族和宗教——的选民，以及随着美国日益多元化，这种做法是如何愈演愈烈的。探究哈里森在19世纪90年代的动机，引发了人们对当今移民和总统政治的思考，包括当代候选人如何调整竞选信息以博取不同群体的支持。

Connection to Today. Discovery Day shows how a presidential platform addressed the demographic upheavals of America, prefiguring a tactic that has become a fixture in the political landscape: reaching out and courting votes among varied constituencies. Harrison’s campaign opens a window on why politicians court voters from different backgrounds—racial, ethnic, and religious—and how this practice has increased as America has become more diverse. Considering Harrison’s motives in the 1890s raises questions about today’s immigration and presidential politics, including how contemporary candidates tailor their message to curry favor with different groups.

你会如何使用这些材料？

How Might You Use These Materials?

情景一（1-2小时课程）。 1492年和1892年，哪个日期更重要？学习如何将一份文件置于历史背景中，并理解是什么促使哈里森发表“发现日”宣言。

Scenario 1 (1–2 Hour Lesson). What date matters most, 1492 or 1892? Learn to put a document in context and understand what influenced Harrison to make his “Discovery Day” proclamation.

请学生阅读《发现日宣言》（资料 4.1），但首先要去掉文件的日期和作者信息。让学生写下他们对这份文件的感受，并记下他们想了解的历史背景问题。除非你事先已经讲解过如何将文件置于历史背景中，否则很多学生会只关注哥伦布饱受争议的遗产，而不会想到去探究这份文件的写作时间或写作目的。在简要讨论学生的感受之后，告诉他们文件的日期和作者信息，并让他们写下这些新信息可能引发的想法。

Ask students to read the Discovery Day proclamation (Source 4.1), but first eliminate the document’s date and author. Have students write down their responses to the document and jot down questions they would ask about its historical context. Unless you’ve already done some work on placing documents in context, many students will zoom in on Columbus’s troubled legacy and never think to ask when the document was written or for what purpose. After briefly discussing students’ responses, give them the document’s date and author, and ask them to write down ideas that these new pieces of information may prompt.

在指出1892年是选举年之后，将学生分成小组，思考哈里森宣布“发现日”为全国性节日的动机（参见工具4.1）。给每个小组分发资料4.1、4.2、4.3和4.4 。根据时间安排，可以提供其他资料，例如资料4.5。布置一篇论文，要求学生解释哈里森为何选择在那个时间发布“发现日”公告，以及1892年的事件如何影响对这份文件的解读。

After pointing out that 1892 was an election year, divide students into groups to consider Harrison’s motives in proclaiming “Discovery Day” a national holiday (see Tool 4.1). Give each group Sources 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4. Depending on how much time you have, provide additional documents, such as Source 4.5. Assign an essay in which students explain why Harrison issued his “Discovery Day” proclamation when he did, and how the events of 1892 shape how the document should be read.

情景二（2-4小时课程）：注重语境。本情景是对前一情景的扩展，旨在让学生有更多机会练习在语境中阅读文档。

Scenario 2 (2–4 Hour Lesson). Focus on context. This scenario expands on the previous one, and is designed to give students more practice reading documents in context.

首先，引导学生进行上述分析和讨论，参考资料4.1、4.2、4.3、4.4和4.5。在此情境中，学生将面对反天主教偏见的问题，例如内战时期关于“一无所知党”（Know-Nothing Party）的节选（资料4.6）以及约翰· F ·肯尼迪1960年直面反天主教问题的演讲（资料4.7）。可以考虑让学生比较不同时期的移民政策问题。这些问题有哪些相同点和不同点？让学生有机会思考宗教问题在过去一百年中如何影响了关于移民的辩论。

First, lead them through the analysis and discussion described above, using Sources 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5. In this scenario, students will confront the issue of anti-Catholic prejudice, as seen in the Civil War-era excerpt about the Know-Nothing Party (Source 4.6) and John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech that confronted the issue of anti-Catholicism head-on (Source 4.7). Consider having students compare issues of immigration policy across time. In what ways are issues the same and different? Give students an opportunity to consider how the issue of religion has influenced debates about immigration during the last hundred years.

或者，可以深入探讨移民的特定时期以及哈里森的宣言。在学生熟悉了19世纪90年代的更广泛议题后，让他们阅读本章开头雅各布对哈里森宣言的回应。让他们思考雅各布遗漏了什么。让学生写一篇作文，论述高中生雅各布在评论哈里森宣言时忽略了哪些方面。

Alternately, go deeper with the particular era of immigration and Harrison’s proclamation. Once students are acquainted with the broader issues of the 1890s, read them Jacob’s response to the Harrison proclamation at the beginning of this chapter. Ask them to consider what Jacob is missing. Have students write an essay about what Jacob, the high school student, missed when he commented on the Harrison proclamation.

情景三（1-2小时课程）。本情景将帮助学生分析一幅不同时代的社论漫画。我们选用托马斯·纳斯特（Thomas Nast）的插图（来源4.8），他不仅是美国最著名的社论漫画家之一，而且在很大程度上促成了大象和驴子成为两大政党的象征。

Scenario 3 (1–2 Hour Lesson). This scenario will help students analyze an editorial cartoon from a different era. We use an illustration by Thomas Nast (Source 4.8), who was not only one of the most famous editorial cartoonists in America, but also the man largely responsible for making the elephant and donkey the symbols of two major political parties.

我们有时会认为，漫画之所以容易被学生理解，是因为它们用图像而非文字来表达观点。虽然这对于当代图像来说或许如此，但解读一幅遥远过去的漫画则截然不同。那些在今天看来易于理解的特征——比如乔治·W·布什那对巨大的耷拉耳朵——在学生试图解读不同时代的社论漫画时，却往往会成为他们的绊脚石。1870年读者能够识别的符号和标记，对于今天的学生（甚至我们自己）来说，往往是难以解读的。

We sometimes assume that cartoons are easy for students to understand because they make their point in pictures, not in words. While this might hold true for contemporary images, trying to decode a cartoon from the distant past is a different story. The very features that make an image easy to understand today—George W. Bush’s huge floppy ears—are what will trip up students when trying to decipher an editorial cartoon from a different era. Codes and symbols that readers would recognize in 1870 will often be indecipherable to today’s students (and often to us as well).

社论漫画运用了一系列许多学生不熟悉的惯例。为此，我们开发了一种记忆工具“BASIC”（工具 4.2），以帮助学生破解漫画的密码。

Editorial cartoons employ a series of conventions that are unfamiliar to many students. For this purpose, we have developed a mnemonic tool, “B.A.S.I.C.” (Tool 4.2), to help students crack a cartoon’s code.

社论漫画的目标与普通漫画（例如加里·拉森或呆伯特的作品）不同，后者旨在娱乐大众。如果社论漫画让我们会心一笑，那只是附带效果，而非其主要目的。社论漫画的首要目的是传达尖锐的政治或社会批判信息。社论漫画有其观点，有时甚至是尖锐的批判。

The goal of an editorial cartoon is different from regular cartoons (think Gary Larson or Dilbert) that seek to amuse or entertain. If an editorial cartoon makes us smile, it’s a side effect, not the primary goal. First and foremost, editorial cartoons convey messages that carry a trenchant political or social critique. Editorial cartoons have a point, sometimes a very sharp one.

资料 4.8展示了纳斯特最著名的漫画之一《美国恒河》，该漫画于 1871 年 9 月 30 日发表在《哈珀周刊》上，并于 1875 年以略微不同的形式再次发表。尽管这幅漫画随处可见（出现在数十个网站上），但如果没有精心设计的入门指导，很少有学生能够理解它的含义。

Source 4.8 displays one of Nast’s most famous cartoons, “The American River Ganges,” published in Harper’s Weekly on September 30, 1871, and again, in a slightly different form, in 1875. Despite its ubiquity (the cartoon appears on dozens of websites), few students will be able to unlock its meaning without a carefully scaffolded entree to this unfamiliar world.

^{“美国恒河”一词出现在纽约州一场关于公立学校资助天主教学校的辩论中。1869年，威廉·“老板”·特威德（William “Boss” Tweed）——他强大的民主党总部坦慕尼协会（Tammany Hall）象征着贪污腐败——起草了一项法案，允许纽约市资助200名或以上学生的教区学校（通常情况下，这项法案仅适用于天主教学校，因为新教和犹太教学校的规模通常要小得多）。当媒体得知特威德的计划后，便对其进行了猛烈抨击，并贴上了“天主教”的标签。尽管纽​​约州议会的}共和党多数派否决了这项法案，但大势已去：人们担心天主教徒决心从公立学校夺走资金，以推行其险恶的“罗马”议程。

“The American River Ganges” appeared during a debate over public funding of Catholic schools in New York State. In 1869, William “Boss” Tweed, whose powerful Democratic headquarters, Tammany Hall, symbolized graft and corruption, authored a bill to allow New York City to fund parochial schools of 200 students or more (in general, this applied only to Catholic schools, as Protestant and Jewish schools were typically much smaller). When the press learned of Tweed’s scheme, they tarred and feathered it with anti-Catholic taunts of “Popery.” Although the Republican majority in the New York legislature killed the bill, the die was cast: People feared that Catholics were determined to take money away from the public schools to promote a sinister “Roman” agenda.⁹

在让学生解开“美国恒河”之谜之前，先回顾一下BASIC缩写（工具4.2）。首先，可以尝试用当代社论漫画练习一下，因为现代观众更容易理解漫画的含义。在我们的教学中，我们发现三步法在解读漫画、艺术作品和照片等视觉证据时非常有效。首先，我们让学生描述他们所看到的内容，重点关注图像的细节。通过全班一起进行这项活动，学生们可以共同领略到比他们个人第一眼所见更多的信息。当学生们仔细观察完图像的细节后，我们再进入解读阶段。在这个阶段，工具4.3至关重要，它可以帮助学生熟悉纳斯特使用的符号和指示物（例如主教冠、圣彼得大教堂等等）。

Before asking students to tackle the riddle that is “The American River Ganges,” begin by going over the B.A.S.I.C. acronym (Tool 4.2). First, try practicing it on contemporary editorial cartoons, whose meanings are more transparent to modern audiences. In our teaching, we have found that a three-part sequence is useful when decoding visual evidence such as cartoons, artwork, and photographs. We begin by asking students to describe what they see, staying close to the details of the image. By doing this as a whole-class activity, students can collectively glimpse more than whatever first meets their individual eyes. Once students have exhausted the details of the image, we move on to interpreting what we see. For this stage Tool 4.3 will be crucial, familiarizing students with symbols and indicators used by Nast (mitres, St. Peter’s Basilica, and so on).

在最后阶段——推测阶段——学生们准备探讨漫画家的论点。工具 4.4包含一些问题，可以引导学生进行分析。使用这些问题，学生可以对《美国河流恒河》进行观察，而无需过早地得出结论或做出解释。

During the final stage—speculating—students are ready to tackle the cartoonist’s argument. Tool 4.4 includes questions that guide students through this analysis. Using this set of questions will allow students to make observations about “The American River Ganges” without unnecessarily forming conclusions or interpretations.

引导学生注意漫画中的鳄鱼：它们是真的吗？它们穿的是什么？确保学生注意到岸上那个带着几个小孩的男孩和背景中其他孩子之间的区别。他们注意到大男孩口袋里露出的书了吗？书里写了什么？最后，当学生猜测漫画的含义时，帮助他们将恒河与天主教联系起来（例如，恒河对印度教徒来说是神圣的，而印度教在19世纪被许多美国人视为外来的、“野蛮的”宗教）。

Draw students’ attention to the crocodiles shown in the cartoon: Are they real? What are they wearing? Make sure students note the difference between the boy onshore with smaller children huddled behind him, and the other children in the background. Do they notice the book protruding from the older boy’s pocket? What does the book say? Finally, when students speculate about the meaning of the cartoon, help make the connection between the Ganges River and Catholicism (i.e., the Ganges is sacred to the Hindus, a religion considered by many 19th-century Americans to be foreign and “barbaric”).

资源和工具

Sources and Tools

资料来源4.1：哈里森的公告（修改版）

SOURCE 4.1: HARRISON’S PROCLAMATION (MODIFIED)

资料来源：本杰明·哈里森总统 1892 年 7 月 21 日的公告。

Source: President Benjamin Harrison’s Proclamation, July 21, 1892.

 

 

资料来源4.2：美国的天主教

SOURCE 4.2: CATHOLICISM IN AMERICA

来源：摘自佚名作者的文章“克里斯托弗·哥伦布——新世界的发现者”，《康涅狄格天主教报》，1878 年 5 月 25 日，第 4 页。

Source: Excerpt, unknown author, “Christopher Columbus—Discoverer of the New World,” Connecticut Catholic, May 25, 1878, 4.

 

 

来源：摘自丹尼尔·科尔韦尔的《哥伦布骑士团：该组织的第一次会议》，《哥伦比亚报》 ，1910 年 3 月。

Source: Excerpt from Daniel Colwell, “The Knights of Columbus: First Meeting of the Order,” The Columbiad, March 1910.

 

 

数据来源：美国人口普查局。网址：http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab04.html

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Available at http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab04.html

 

 

资料来源4.5 ：哈里森演讲（改编）

SOURCE 4.5: HARRISON SPEECH (ADAPTED)

资料来源：本杰明·哈里森于 1887 年 4 月 8 日在印第安纳波利斯发表的竞选演讲。

Source: Campaign speech made by Benjamin Harrison in Indianapolis, April 8, 1887.

（原来的）

(Original)

或许有人会认为我们今晚的行为略带冒犯——英国议会正在讨论的有关爱尔兰的待决立法问题，在美国的市民大会上讨论似乎并不合适……我们并无正式的意愿向英国政府提出任何意见。英国政府可以关注我们在此的言行，也可以置之不理，但我们仍然要行使表达意见的权利……我们并非在此建议英国承认爱尔兰独立……我们只是想表明，作为美国公民，我们认为爱尔兰需要的不是强制，不是警察，也不是手持火枪和刺刀的士兵；而是旨在将爱尔兰人民从几个世纪以来糟糕的政府统治中解放出来的自由法律。我们认为，当英国政府开始采取强制手段，并将改革建议推迟到强制法案通过之后时，它就走错了方向。

It may be suggested that we are engaged to-night in an act that savors somewhat of impertinence—that the question of the pending legislation relating to Ireland, which is the subject of discussion in the British Parliament, is not a proper subject of discussion in an American town meeting…. We have no official representations to make to the British government. It can take notice or not of what we do and say here, but all the same we will exercise the liberty of saying it…. We are not here to suggest to Great Britain that she shall concede Irish independence…. We are here simply to say that, in our opinion as American citizens, what Ireland needs is not coercion, is not the constable, is not the soldier with musket and bayonet; but liberal laws, tending to emancipate her people from the results of long centuries of ill government, and that when this British Ministry starts in the direction of coercion, and postpones suggestions for reform until a coercion bill has been enacted, it is traveling in the wrong direction.

 

 

来源4.6：无知派对​​​

SOURCE 4.6: KNOW-NOTHING PARTY

资料来源：《北美合众国全国委员会（又称“一无所知党”）第二条》。约1855年。

Source: Article II of the National Council of the United States of North America, otherwise known as the Know-Nothing Party. Circa 1855.

资料来源4.7 ：肯尼迪演讲

SOURCE 4.7: KENNEDY SPEECH

来源：摘自总统候选人约翰·F·肯尼迪于 1960 年 9 月 12 日发表的演讲。

Source: Excerpt from a speech given by presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, September 12, 1960.

 

 

来源：托马斯·纳斯特，《美国恒河》，《哈珀周刊》 ，1871 年 9 月 30 日（另见http://www.aoh61.com/images/ir_cartoons/river_ganges.htm）。

Source: Thomas Nast, “The American River Ganges,” Harper’s Weekly, September 30, 1871 (see also http://www.aoh61.com/images/ir_cartoons/river_ganges.htm).

 

 

工具4.1：将资源置于背景之中

TOOL 4.1: PUTTING A SOURCE IN CONTEXT

---

说明：使用资料 4.2 – 4.5来帮助你理解哈里森在 1892 年设立发现日的原因。

Directions: Use Sources 4.2–4.5 to help you understand why Harrison established Discovery Day in 1892.

工具4.2：基本

TOOL 4.2: B.A.S.I.C.

---

基础：解读社论漫画的步骤

B.A.S.I.C.: Steps to Interpreting Editorial Cartoons

 

 

社论漫画的特点是能在有限的篇幅内传递大量的信息。缩写词 BASIC 可以帮助你在欣赏不同时期的漫画时记住需要关注哪些方面。

Editorial cartoons use features that pack dense information into a small space. The acronym B.A.S.I.C. reminds you what to look for when exploring a cartoon from a different time.

B：背景知识

B: Background Knowledge

漫画家会做出一些假设，其中之一就是他们和读者共享一个共同的世界。在一幅描绘国土安全部特工搜身的漫画中，如果画的是两栋燃烧的建筑，我们一眼就能认出那是世界贸易中心的双子塔。这些特征如此基础，以至于我们习以为常，但再过一代人之后，情况可能就不同了。当我们解读一幅一百年前的漫画时，往往缺乏必要的背景知识来破解漫画的含义。研究漫画出现的时代背景，有助于我们理解作者想要表达的意思。

Cartoonists make certain assumptions, and one of them is that they and their readers share a common world. In a cartoon about strip searches by Homeland Security agents, an artist can depict two burning buildings, and we’ll immediately recognize them as the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. These features are so basic that we take them for granted, yet in another generation or so they won’t be. When we interpret a cartoon from a hundred years ago, we often lack necessary background knowledge to crack the cartoon’s code. Studying the period in which a cartoon appeared can help you figure out what the artist is trying to say.

A：论点

A: Argument

BASIC 中的 A 代表“论证”（argument）。虽然社论漫画能让我们开怀大笑，但它们的目标更为严肃：传达某种观点，并说服我们接受某种立场。当你欣赏一幅漫画时，不妨问问自己：“作者想让我怎么想？” 尝试用简短的语句概括作者的观点或论点，例如：“从这幅漫画中可以清楚地看出，作者认为依赖外国石油会毁了美国。”

The A in B.A.S.I.C. stands for “argument.” Although editorial cartoons can make us laugh or smile, they have a more serious goal: to convey a point and convince us to adopt a position. When you look at a cartoon, ask yourself, “What does the artist want me to think?” Try to state the artist’s point, or thesis, in a short statement, e.g., “From this cartoon, it is clear that the author thinks dependence on foreign oil will ruin America.”

S：象征主义

S: Symbolism

漫画运用符号将大量信息浓缩于单一画面之中。符号是指向比自身更广泛的概念的指称。新月、六芒星和十字架不仅仅是月亮、星星或几何图形，它们分别代表着伊斯兰教、犹太教和基督教这三大宗教文明。符号是每位漫画家必备的工具。

Cartoons use symbols to pack a lot of information into a single frame. Symbols are designations that point to something broader than themselves. A crescent, a six-pointed star, and a cross are more than moons, stars, or geometric figures. They stand for entire religious civilizations: Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, respectively. Symbols are part of the toolbox of every editorial cartoonist.

I：指标

I: Indicators

但符号本身并不能完成这项工作。漫画家会使用指示符或文字标签来引导我们理解。通常，指示符会直接告诉我们某个事物代表什么（有时甚至是漫画中唯一使用的文字）。除了漫画的标题和说明文字之外，还要留意其他指示符，它们有时会以小字出现在漫画正文中。

But symbols can’t do it alone. Cartoonists use indicators, or written labels, that point us in a certain direction. Often, indicators tell us directly what something stands for (and may be the only words used in the cartoon). In addition to the cartoon’s title and caption, be on the lookout for other indicators, sometimes found in small print in the body of the cartoon itself.

C：漫画

C: Caricature

漫画遵循“值得说的话就值得夸张”的格言，而讽刺画正是这种夸张手法的典型代表。当我们被堵在路上时，可能会说：“前面有一百万辆车！得花好几年才能出来。” 漫画家们也秉持着同样的理念，将糟糕的政府政策比作十灾之一，或者将年迈的候选人比作千岁老人。讽刺画还可以运用刻板印象，即扭曲的形象，夸大整个群体的特征。这类形象，尤其是来自不同时代的形象，在现代人看来往往带有种族主义或偏见色彩。

Cartoons follow the adage, “What’s worth stating is worth overstating,” and caricature exemplifies such exaggeration. When we’re stuck in a traffic jam, we might say, “There are a million cars in front of us! It’ll take years to get out of here.” In the same spirit, cartoonists compare a bad government policy to one of the Ten Plagues, or an aging candidate to the Thousand-Year-Old Man. Caricature can also employ stereotypes, distorted images that exaggerate the features of entire groups. Such images, particularly those from a different era, often seem racist or bigoted to our modern eyes.

 

 

工具4.3 ：解读托马斯·纳斯特的《美洲河流变迁》​​​​

TOOL 4.3: DECODING THOMAS NAST’S “THE AMERICAN RIVER GANGES”

来源：“贝拿勒斯：从高止山脉看到的景色”，埃利塞·雷克吕，《地球及其居民》，1884 年。

Source: “Benares: View Taken from the Ghats,” Elisee Reclus, The Earth and Its Inhabitants, 1884.

 

 

工具4.4 ：托马斯·纳斯特的《美国河流变迁》​​​

TOOL 4.4: THOMAS NAST’S “THE AMERICAN RIVER GANGES”

---

1. 仔细观察鳄鱼出没的水域。鳄鱼头上长着什么？这象征着什么？
2. Look carefully at the crocodile-infested waters. What do the crocodiles have on their heads? What does this symbolize?
3. 这幅漫画中的鳄鱼代表什么？
4. What do the crocodiles in this cartoon represent?
5. 是谁把孩子扔下悬崖？
6. Who are the people casting the children off the cliff?
7. 被拖往绞刑架的女子是谁？
8. Who is the woman being dragged to the gallows?
9. 这幅漫画中有两栋建筑；两栋建筑上都有“指示牌”，帮助读者正确解读漫画。这些指示牌是什么？它们又告诉了你漫画的什么信息？
10. There are two buildings in this cartoon; both contain “indicators” to help the reader correctly interpret the cartoon. What are these indicators and what do they tell you about the cartoon’s message?
11. 这位漫画家想表达什么观点？他希望读者看完这幅漫画后产生什么想法？
12. What is the argument of this cartoonist? What does he want the reader to think after viewing this cartoon?
13. 你认为纳斯特为什么将这幅漫画命名为“美国的恒河”？通过将天主教的象征符号与印度教徒的圣河联系起来，你认为这位漫画家想让人们对美国天主教徒产生怎样的看法？
14. Why do you think Nast titled the cartoon “The American River Ganges”? By connecting Catholic symbols with a river sacred to the Hindus in India, what do you think the cartoonist wanted people to think about American Catholics?

推荐资源

Suggested Resources

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/primarysourcesets/immigration/

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/primarysourcesets/immigration/

这是由美国国会图书馆创建和维护的原始文献集“新美国人面临的移民挑战”的主页。除了音频、视频、照片和漫画等原始资料外，还提供教师用书。

This is the home page of a primary document set, “Immigration Challenges for New Americans,” created and maintained by the Library of Congress. In addition to primary source materials like audio and video footage, photographs, and cartoons, teacher materials are available as well.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/immigration/index.cfm

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/immigration/index.cfm

斯蒂芬·明茨的数字历史网站上的这个页面提供了一系列关于美国移民历史的资源。

This page from Stephen Mintz’s Digital History website offers a range of resources about the history of immigration to the United States.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook28.html

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook28.html

保罗·哈尔索尔的《互联网现代史资料库》中的这一页列出了有关美国各族裔移民的文件和网站链接。

This page from Paul Halsall’s Internet Modern History Sourcebook lists document and website links that focus on the American immigration of various ethnic groups.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/harris.asp

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/harris.asp

阅读本杰明·哈里森在阿瓦隆计划（耶鲁大学法律和政治文件在线档案馆）上的就职演说。

Read Benjamin Harrison’s inaugural address at The Avalon Project, an online archive of legal and political documents housed at Yale University.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/mse/sia/cartoon.htm

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/mse/sia/cartoon.htm

在“历史要事”（History Matters）网站上，一位历史学家如何解读托马斯·纳斯特的另一幅漫画。“历史要事”是由乔治·梅森大学历史与新媒体中心开发和维护的网站。

See how a historian interprets another Thomas Nast cartoon at History Matters, a website developed and maintained by the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University.

http://cartoons.osu.edu/nast/portfolio.htm

http://cartoons.osu.edu/nast/portfolio.htm

在俄亥俄州立大学主办的这个网站上可以找到托马斯·纳斯特的其他漫画作品。

Find other Thomas Nast cartoons on this site hosted by Ohio State University.

1921年，堪萨斯州家庭主妇W.C. Lathrop夫人写信给托马斯·爱迪生，感谢这位发明家为她家带来的电力和省时电器（见资料5.1）。 ¹她从堪萨斯州诺顿市写道：

In a 1921 letter to Thomas Edison, Mrs. W. C. Lathrop, a housewife from Kansas, thanked the inventor for the electricity and time-saving appliances in her home (see Source 5.1).¹ From Norton, Kansas, she wrote:

我们最近旁听了一节11年级的课，学生们正在研读这封信。他们手捧这封信，思考着“爱迪生的发明是如何改变美国人生活的？”这个问题。受拉思罗普夫人热情洋溢的描述感染，学生们纷纷说道：“方方面面都改变了！”“改变了很多！”“它们让生活更轻松——尤其对女性而言！”拉思罗普夫人生动的描述让学生们相信，电力和家用电器不仅改善了她的生活，也改善了所有女性的生活。

We recently observed a class of 11th-graders who examined this letter. With this letter in hand, they pondered the question, “How did Edison’s inventions change American life?” Carried away by Mrs. Lathrop’s exuberance, students gushed, “In every way,” “A lot,” “They made life easier—especially for women.” The vividness of Mrs. Lathrop’s words led students to believe electricity and appliances had improved life for all women, just as they had for her.

直到老师问：“拉思罗普太太的情况有多典型？我们能从这封信中看出多少信息？”学生们才从最初的草率印象转向真正的历史分析。人口普查数据以及历史学家关于电气化、技术、家务劳动和女性角色的研究都表明，拉思罗普太太并非20世纪20年代的典型女性。她的家庭也并非当时大多数家庭的代表。因此，探究拉思罗普太太的典型性，就成了一堂关于社会阶层、地域差异、20世纪20年代生活以及家务劳动从前工业化向工业化过渡的课程。

Not until the teacher asked, “How typical was Mrs. Lathrop? How much can we say from this one letter?” did the students move from glib first impressions to begin the work of real historical analysis. Census data and historians’ work on electrification, technology, housework, and women’s roles all indicate that Mrs. Lathrop was not a typical 1920s woman. Nor did her household represent the majority of households of the time. Investigating the typicality of Mrs. Lathrop thus becomes a lesson in social class, regional differences, life in the 1920s, and the transition from pre-industrialized to industrialized housework.

我们首先需要做的，是通过关注历史理解的两个核心方面——时间和地点——来确定这份文件的出处。时间是1921年。拉思罗普夫人提到的许多发明——缝纫机、洗碗机等等——都是在前一年左右才问世的。那么，究竟是谁拥有这些电器？它们的普及程度如何？其次，堪萨斯州的诺顿究竟在哪里？堪萨斯州显然位于美国中部，但诺顿具体在哪里？它是像威奇托或托皮卡这样的大城市的郊区吗？还是远离大城市，位于20世纪20年代仍然占据美国人口大多数的乡村地区？

The first thing we need to do is source this document by focusing on two core aspects of historical understanding: time and place. The year is 1921. The many inventions Mrs. Lathrop mentions—sewing machine, dishwasher, and so on—had just come out the previous year or so. Who, in fact, owned these devices? How widespread were they? Second, where exactly is Norton, Kansas? Kansas is in the American heartland, obviously, but where is Norton? Is it a suburb of an urban area like Wichita or Topeka? Or is it distant from a big city, part of the rural landscape that still constituted a majority of the American population in the 1920s?

多年前，要想回答这些问题，就得在图书馆的书架间耗费大量时间，翻阅成堆的参考书，希望能找到答案。但得益于互联网的便利和易于使用的数据库的普及，如今任何拥有高速网络连接的学生都能找到这些问题的答案。利用这些资源，我们可以迅速了解拉思罗普夫人究竟有多么不同寻常，以及将她的情况概括为20世纪20年代所有美国女性是多么危险。

Years ago, trying to answer these questions would have meant long hours spent in the stacks of a library, hunting through piles of reference books hoping to find answers. But thanks to the wonders of the Internet and the proliferation of easy-to-use databases, these questions can be answered by any student with a high-speed connection. Drawing on these resources, we can quickly get an idea of just how unusual Mrs. Lathrop was, and just how perilous it is to generalize from her to all American women in the 1920s.

利用谷歌地图（http://maps.google.com），我们可以很快地看到堪萨斯州诺顿位于西北方向。诺顿县位于堪萨斯州一角，紧邻内布拉斯加州南部边界，远离主要人口中心——距托皮卡290英里，距堪萨斯城350英里，距威奇托270英里，距丹佛310英里。弗吉尼亚大学图书馆网站（http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu）上的1920年联邦人口普查数据为我们提供了更多关于拉思罗普家乡的信息。通过指定堪萨斯州，我们了解到，1920年诺顿县的堪萨斯州人口为11,423人，占全州总人口1,769,257人的不到1%。事实上，人口普查数据显示，诺顿县的人口密度为每平方英里130人，在堪萨斯州各县中排名后半段。看来，拉思罗普夫人在1921年写信给托马斯·爱迪生时，居住在一个相当偏远的乡村地区。

Using Google Maps (http://maps.google.com), we can quickly see that Norton, Kansas, is in the northwest corner of Kansas, just south of the Nebraska border and far from major population centers—290 miles from Topeka, 350 from Kansas City, 270 from Wichita, and 310 from Denver. A look at the 1920 Federal census at the University of Virginia library’s website (http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu) gives us more information about Lathrop’s hometown. By specifying Kansas, we learn that in 1920, Norton County accounted for 11,423 Kansans out of a state population of 1,769,257 (or less than 1%). Indeed, the census shows that Norton County had 130 people per square mile, putting it in the bottom half of the state’s counties in terms of population density. Mrs. Lathrop, it appears, lived in a fairly rural region when she wrote to Thomas Edison in 1921.

与她同龄的农村居民相比，拉思罗普夫人在1921年就能用上电，这本身就非常罕见。美国技术史学家大卫·奈指出，1935年（拉思罗普夫人写信14年后），堪萨斯州农村地区只有5%到15%的人用上了电；大部分通电的农村地区都位于东北部或远西部。 ² 20世纪南方经济发展史学家克莱顿·布朗引用1920年的联邦人口普查数据显示，在600万个农场中，只有452,620个（不到8%）用上了电灯，只有643,899个（约占10%）用上了自来水。 ³ 布朗总结道，这些进步大多发生在新英格兰和远西部地区：“中西部和南部地区的普及率最低，在1%到不到1%之间。” ^4.直到 20 世纪 30 年代罗斯福新政时期，大多数农村地区才通电。

Compared to her rural peers, the fact that Mrs. Lathrop even had electricity in 1921 was highly unusual. David Nye, a historian of American technology, notes that in 1935 (14 years after Mrs. Lathrop wrote her letter) only 5 to 15% of rural Kansas had electricity; most rural areas with electricity lay in the Northeast or Far West.² Clayton Brown, a historian of 20th-century Southern economic development, cites a 1920 Federal census showing that of 6 million farms, only 452,620 (less than 8%) had electric lights and only 643,899, roughly 10%, possessed running water.³ Brown concludes that most of these advancements took place in New England and the Far West: “The Midwest and South ranked lowest, ranging from 10 percent to less than 1 percent.”⁴ Electrification didn’t come to most rural areas until the New Deal of the 1930s.

与拉思罗普不同，大多数农村妇女为了维持家庭运转，不得不忍受繁重的体力劳动。洗衣服尤其令人厌恶。 ⁵历史学家苏珊·斯特拉瑟根据家庭经济学家凯瑟琳·比彻（1841年）和海伦·坎贝尔（1881年）的著作对此进行了描述。

In contrast to Lathrop, most rural women endured backbreaking work to keep their households running. Doing laundry was particularly odious.⁵ Historian Susan Strasser gives a description based on the treatises of home economists Catharine Beecher (1841) and Helen Campbell (1881).

布朗的研究支持了这些分析。1919年，美国农业部（USDA）报告称，“农村家庭每周要花费超过10个小时抽水，并将水从水源地运到厨房。” ⁷ 布朗认为，“农妇每年花在洗衣上的时间比城市里使用电动洗衣机的妇女多20天。” ⁸ 美国传记作家罗伯特·卡罗在其为林登·约翰逊所作的传记中，描述了在约翰逊于1938年推动该地区通电之前，德克萨斯州农村丘陵地带（位于诺顿以南仅816英里处）洗衣的繁重劳动（参见资料5.5）。 ⁹

Brown’s work supports these analyses. In 1919, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that “rural families spent over 10 hours per week pumping water and carrying it from source to kitchen.”⁷ Brown contends, “Farmwives spent twenty days more per year washing clothes than women in the city using electric washers.”⁸ In his biography of Lyndon B. Johnson, American biographer Robert Caro describes the intensive labor involved in doing laundry in the rural hill country of Texas—just 816 miles south of Norton—before LBJ orchestrated the advent of electricity in the region in 1938 (see Source 5.5).⁹

在电力线路和室内管道铺设到千家万户、人们购买洗衣机之前，洗衣方式在几代人中几乎没有改变。1921年，拉思罗普太太在美国农村使用电动洗衣机、吸尘器、熨斗和电灯，但这并不能代表当时农村居民的普遍生活。虽然到1930年，大多数城市居民都享受到了这些便利，但农户家庭要过很多年才能享受到类似的家用科技。 ¹⁰

The process of doing laundry was largely unchanged across generations until electrical lines and indoor plumbing were extended to people’s homes and people purchased washing machines. Mrs. Lathrop’s use of an electric washing machine, vacuum cleaner, iron, and electric lights in rural America in 1921 did not represent the experiences of her rural peers. Although by 1930 most urban dwellers had such conveniences, it would be years before farm families could take similar advantage of household technology.¹⁰

如果拉思罗普夫人能在美国乡村享受到这样的便利，为什么其他人就不能呢？使用洗衣机需要室内管道和冷热水。而且，你首先需要钱来购买洗衣机，支付水电费，为房屋布线，并将电线接入家中。电力公司没有动力将电线延伸到只有少数人能够接入电网的农村地区。大多数农村居民太穷，买不起电器，也付不起日常用电费用（参见资料5.3）。奈伊指出，到20世纪20年代末，美国只有10%的农民家中接入了配电线路，而他们接入电网的费用是城市居民的两倍。 ¹¹如果拉思罗普夫人在1921年堪萨斯州的农村地区用上了电，而其他人却没有，那是因为她处于一个特殊的境地。她很富有！

If Mrs. Lathrop could enjoy such amenities in rural America, why couldn’t others? Using a washing machine required indoor plumbing, and hot and cold running water. And you needed the money to buy the appliance in the first place, pay utility bills, wire the house, and bring electrical lines to it. Power companies had no incentive to extend lines to rural areas where only small numbers could tap into them. Most rural residents were too poor to pay for appliances or daily electricity (see Source 5.3). Nye stipulates that the 10% of American farmers who had distribution lines to their homes by the end of the 1920s had paid double the urban rate to get connected to the grid.¹¹ If Lathrop had electricity in rural Kansas in 1921 while others didn’t, it is because she was in a rare position. She was rich!

拉思罗普夫人的农村同胞们直到罗斯福新政时期才盼来电力。始于1938年的农村电气化管理局（REA）向农民合作社提供资金、设备和技术支持。一年后，四分之一的农场用上了电。 ¹² 第二次世界大战延缓了电力普及的步伐；到1944年，美国只有45%的农场通了电。¹³与之形成鲜明对比的是，在商业和公民利益的推动下，电力迅速普及到城市。城市居民受益于连接企业和工厂的输电线路，而郊区居民则利用有轨电车线路与市中心连接。

Mrs. Lathrop’s rural peers had to wait until the New Deal before they could hope for electricity. Begun in 1938, the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) lent money, equipment, and expertise to farmers’ cooperatives. A year later, a quarter of all farms had electrical service.¹² World War II slowed the pace; only 45% of U.S. farms had received electricity by 1944.¹³ In contrast, spurred by business and civic interests, electricity came quickly to cities. Urban dwellers benefited from lines that connected businesses and factories, while suburban residents took advantage of electrical trolley lines connecting them to city centers.

拉思罗普夫人的家与大多数农村家庭的居住环境形成了鲜明对比，这凸显了她的上层阶级背景。1920年，美国只有35%的家庭用上了电，这意味着拉思罗普夫人的生活水平高于大多数美国人。 ¹⁴这些新型电器设备的主要受益者是富人。历史学家露丝·施瓦茨·考恩发现，在36个美国城市的富裕家庭中，80%的人用上了电。1926年，吸尘器和洗衣机已普及。 ¹⁵ 1921年，电炉和洗衣机在上层阶级家庭中更为常见。 ¹⁶ 1935年，印第安纳州芒西市60%的家庭拥有燃气或电炉，50%的家庭拥有吸尘器。 ¹⁷拉思罗普夫人14年前在农村地区就拥有这两种电器（参见资料5.2）。 ¹⁸

The sharp contrast between Mrs. Lathrop’s home and the majority of rural households shines a light on her upper-class background. Given that 35% of all American households had electricity in 1920, Mrs. Lathrop enjoyed a higher standard of living than most Americans.¹⁴ The chief beneficiaries of these new electrified gadgets were the wealthy. Historian Ruth Schwartz Cowen found that of the affluent households in 36 American cities, 80% had vacuum cleaners and washing machines in 1926.¹⁵ Electric ranges and washing machines were more often found in upper-class homes in 1921.¹⁶ In 1935, 60% of families in Muncie, Indiana, owned a gas or electric range and 50% had a vacuum cleaner.¹⁷ Mrs. Lathrop had both appliances in a rural area 14 years earlier (compare with Source 5.2).¹⁸

1921年，一位富裕女性的生活是怎样的？拉思罗普夫人的信表明，她无需工作就能维持生计。她提到自己担任地区妇女俱乐部官员、镇组织主席和女主人等职务。据考恩所述，这些都是当时上层阶级家庭主妇可能从事的活动^。19

What was life like for a woman of means in 1921? Mrs. Lathrop’s letter indicates that she didn’t work to make ends meet. She mentions her roles as officer in the District of Women’s Club, President of the Town Organization, and hostess. According to Cowen, these are the kinds of activities that an upper-class housewife of this era might have engaged in.¹⁹

但变革正在悄然发生。在某些情况下，新的省时设备反而让富裕女性承担了更多家务，而非减少。这怎么可能呢？从1900年到1920年，生活水平较高的女性很可能雇佣家政人员来完成诸如洗衣熨烫或打扫房间等家务——对于这个阶层的女性来说，从事如此繁重的体力劳动被认为是有损尊严的。 ²⁰拉思罗普夫人关于“几乎所有家务都自己做”的说法²¹表明她可能雇佣了家政人员。然而，从1920年到1940年，随着家用电器的普及，上层阶级家庭主妇在家中获得的帮助越来越少。即使是举止优雅的女士也能轻松使用洗衣机和吸尘器。 ²²与世纪之交相比，“这一代生活优渥的家庭主妇学会了在没有佣人帮助的情况下安排家务，或者所需的帮助时间远少于她们的母亲。” ²³

But changes were afoot. In some cases, new time-saving devices meant that rich women were doing more housework rather than less. How is that possible? From 1900 to 1920, a woman with a high standard of living most likely had domestic help to complete housework such as washing and ironing laundry or cleaning rooms—tasks involving such heavy labor were considered demeaning for women of this class.²⁰ Mrs. Lathrop’s statement about “doing practically all my own work”²¹ suggests that she may have had domestic help. However, from 1920 to 1940, upper-class housewives had less and less help in the home as ownership of electric appliances grew. Even genteel ladies could use a washing machine and vacuum cleaner without much toil.²² Compared to the turn of the century, “the average comfortable housewife of this generation learned to organize the work in her household without the assistance of servants or with far fewer hours of assistance than her mother had had.”²³

拉思罗普夫人与同龄人的另一个关键区别在于：她是一位大学毕业生。正如教育史学家帕特里夏·阿尔比约格·格雷厄姆所指出的，世纪之交上大学的人寥寥无几——1920年，只有8%的“传统大学适龄人群”接受过高等教育。 ²⁴而在拉思罗普夫人可能就读的1900年至1910年间，这一比例仅为4%至5%。 ²⁵这些学生来自“比普通民众更富裕、社会地位更高的家庭”。 ²⁶ 1837年，奥柏林学院成为美国第一所向女性开放的大学。到1910年，女性占本科生总数的近40%。 ²⁷到1920年拉思罗普夫人给爱迪生写信时，已有34%的美国女性获得了学士学位或专业学位。²⁸历史学家芭芭拉·所罗门指出，虽然大多数女大学生都结婚了，但她们的结婚人数少于未上过大学的女性，而且结婚年龄也更大。29^许多已婚的大学毕业生将重心放在家务和志愿工作上，而不是事业上。1920年，只有9%的美国女性在家庭以外工作，比1900年增加了3.4%。30^拉思罗普夫人上过大学，这在当时并不常见，但她将自己的学位用于志愿工作和家务，而不是从事专业工作，这在当时却相当典型。

Mrs. Lathrop was different from her peers in another crucial way: she was a college graduate. As historian of education Patricia Albjerg Graham notes, few people attended college at the turn of the century—in 1920, only 8% of men and women from the “traditional college age group” attended college.²⁴ In 1900–10, when Mrs. Lathrop likely attended, that figure was only 4–5%.²⁵ These students came from families with “greater wealth and higher social status than the population at large.”²⁶ In 1837, Oberlin was the first college in the United States to open its doors to women. By 1910, women made up almost 40% of the undergraduate population.²⁷ By 1920, when Mrs. Lathrop wrote Edison, a total of 34% of American women had received a bachelor’s degree or professional degree.²⁸ Historian Barbara Solomon notes that while most college women married, they did so in fewer numbers than those who didn’t attend college, and at a later age.²⁹ Many married graduates focused on domestic duties and volunteer work rather than a career. In 1920, only 9% of American women worked outside the home, up 3.4% from 1900.³⁰ Mrs. Lathrop was unusual for having gone to college, but fairly typical in using her degree for volunteer and domestic work rather than a profession.

拉思罗普夫人还代表了什么？她无疑代表了电力和家用电器改变女性工作性质后，女性所作出的积极反应。阿拉巴马州早期农村电气化实验的居民反响非常积极。D·克莱顿·布朗报告说：“电力对减轻家务负担的影响最大。妻子们提到，摆脱挑水和照料煤油灯的负担是她们最珍视的解脱。参与者们将更多的时间投入到阅读和听收音机等晚间活动中。” ³¹ 1939年及以后，当电力普及到更多农村居民时，人们的反应也类似。 ³²照明、休闲时间以及摆脱取水（用于饮用、烹饪、洗澡和洗衣）的繁重劳作，对农村家庭来说都是令人欣喜的变化。

What else does Mrs. Lathrop represent? She certainly represents the positive reaction of women once electricity and household appliances changed the nature of women’s work. Residents’ reactions to an early Alabama experiment in rural electrification were overwhelmingly positive. D. Clayton Brown reports, “Electricity had [the] greatest impact in easing the burden of keeping house. Wives mentioned freedom from carrying water and caring for kerosene lamps as their most prized releases from drudgery. Participants devoted more time to evening activities such as reading and listening to the radio.”³¹ When electricity reached more rural residents in 1939 and beyond, reactions were similar.³² Lighting, time for leisure, and a break from the grueling toil of fetching water for drinking, cooking, bathing, and laundry were all welcome changes in rural homes.

新技术进入拉思罗普太太的家中后，她的生活是否变得更加“宜居”了？一天结束时，她是否真的“休息充足，随时准备服侍”丈夫？尽管学者们一致认为电力减轻了繁重的体力劳动，但也有一些学者指出，电力对女性在家庭中的角色产生了意想不到的影响。电力和家用电器的影响远比拉思罗普的信件或人们的直接反应所暗示的更为深远和复杂（参见资料5.4）。历史学家考恩和斯特拉瑟认为，当时女性的工作正处于根本性的变革之中，而这些变革的影响尚未完全显现。

Was life more “livable” for Mrs. Lathrop once the new technology entered her home? Was she truly “rested and ready to serve” her husband at the end of the day? Though scholars agree that electricity reduced backbreaking labor, several point to unexpected consequences it had on women’s role in the home. The impact of electricity and appliances was greater and more varied than either Lathrop’s letter or people’s immediate reactions might suggest (see Source 5.4). Historians Cowen and Strasser argue that women’s work was in the midst of fundamental changes, and the ramifications had not yet been fully realized.

拉思罗普夫人的信表明，1900年代的家庭不再是生产单位，而是消费单位。露丝·施瓦茨·考恩认为这种观点具有误导性，因为它暗示女性因技术变革而获得了新的休闲时间。考恩认为，电力只是改变了家务的性质，并没有消除家务。日益提高的清洁标准增加了女性需要完成的家务量。由于技术使家务变得更容易，人们期望她们更频繁地完成这些家务。虽然吸尘器使清洁地毯变得容易得多，但人们现在期望女性每周吸尘，并且家中一尘不染，而不是像以前那样一年清洁几次地毯，无需担心灰尘。新的清洁标准也适用于洗衣。由于新技术使这些家务看起来很容易，人们期望她们更频繁地完成这些家务。斯特拉瑟解释说：

Mrs. Lathrop’s letter suggests that households in the 1900s were no longer units of production, but had become units of consumption. For Ruth Schwartz Cowen this notion is misleading, as it suggests that women had gained new leisure time as a result of technological changes. Cowen argues that electricity only changed the nature of housework; it didn’t eliminate it. Rising standards of cleanliness now added to the amount of housework women were expected to complete. Because technology made tasks easier, they were expected to be done more often. Although vacuum cleaners made cleaning rugs much easier, women were now expected to vacuum weekly and have no dust in the home rather than clean the rugs a few times per year and not worry about the dust. New standards of cleanliness applied to laundry as well. And because new technology made such tasks seem easy, they were expected to be done more often. Strasser explains,

移民减少、战争爆发、经济萧条以及关于女性角色的新兴意识形态，导致家庭雇佣的佣人数量急剧下降。 ³⁴ 与此同时，一些家务劳动（洗衣熨烫、地毯清洁）回归家庭，填补了新设备投入使用所节省的时间。正如考恩所解释的那样，

Decreasing immigration, the onset of war, economic depression, and emerging ideology about women’s roles led to a sharp decline in the number of servants employed by households.³⁴ At the same time, returning certain tasks to the home (washing and ironing laundry, carpet cleaning) filled any time gained by the new equipment. As Cowen explains,

在过去，像洗衣这样的家务被认为过于费力，或者有损上层阶级女性的尊严。随着新技术的出现减轻了这些繁重的劳动，所有女性从事这类工作都变得可以接受。 ³⁶ 最终的结果是，美国女性比以往任何时候都更积极地参与家务劳动。节省下来的劳动力是雇佣的工人，而不是她们自己的。 ³⁷

In earlier times, tasks like laundry were deemed too labor-intensive or demeaning for upper-class women. Once the new technology eased the drudgery, it became acceptable for all women to do this kind of work.³⁶ The net effect was that American women were more engaged in housework than ever. The labor saved was hired workers’, not their own.³⁷

科恩在研究20世纪20年代和30年代富裕家庭主妇的时间安排时发现，她们平均花在做家务上的时间并没有显著变化。 ³⁸同样，女性的阶级背景反映了电力和技术对家务劳动的影响。贫困的农村妇女直到1939年左右才感受到变化；大多数人直到战后才经历重大改变。只有到了那时，工人阶级妇女才感受到技术进步带来的益处，家务劳动变得不再那么繁重。

When Cowen examined time studies of affluent housewives in the 1920s and 1930s, she found that the average time spent on housework did not change markedly.³⁸ Again, women’s class background reflected the impact of electricity and technology on housework. Rural women without means saw no change until about 1939; most would not experience major changes until after the war. Only then did working-class women feel a boost from technology that made housework less laborious.

在拉思罗普夫人写作的年代，城市中低收入阶层的女性生活水平可能有所提高。这些女性除了家务劳动外，通常还有其他收入来源，因此不太可能花钱请人做基本的家务。然而，尽管新技术、自来水和电力带来了显著的进步，但日益提高的清洁标准以及将家庭生活与女性特质紧密联系在一起的观念，也给所有女性带来了额外的压力。

Urban women of the poorer and middle classes probably experienced an improved standard of living around the time Mrs. Lathrop wrote. These women often earned wages beyond their housework, and would have been less likely to pay others to complete basic household tasks. But even as new technology, running water, and electricity were notable improvements, increasing standards of cleanliness and an ideology that linked domesticity and womanhood put additional pressure on all women.

科恩认为，随着女性在家庭中的角色日益固定，无论阶级如何，她们都变得更加孤立。自工业时代开始以来，女性与丈夫和孩子一起劳动的时间比工业时代之前要少得多。随着电力的出现，这一趋势仍在继续。男性和儿童过去承担的家务（例如砍柴和搬运柴火）如今已不再必要。这解放了男性的时间，使他们能够外出工作。工业化解放了儿童，让他们有时间上学或从事有偿劳动。与此同时，清洁和烹饪等家务仍然保留了下来——而这些工作又落到了女性身上。^因此，一些历史学家认为，尽管电力和家用技术的直接影响令人瞩目，但从长远来看，它们只是重新安排了家务劳动，而不是减少了家务劳动。对于许多女性来说，其后果远没有拉思罗普夫人信中所描述的那样积极。

Cowen argues that as their roles became more fixed in the home, regardless of class, women became more isolated. Since the onset of the industrial age, women had worked less alongside their husbands and children than in pre-industrial times. With the advent of electricity, this trend continued. The tasks men and children used to perform (cutting and hauling wood for stoves) were now obsolete. This freed men’s time and enabled them to find work outside the home. Children, freed by industrialization, spent time at school or wage-earning labor. Meanwhile, tasks like cleaning and cooking remained—and they fell to women.³⁹ Thus, some historians argue that even though the immediate impact of electricity and household technology was stunning, in the long run, they simply rearranged, rather than reduced, housework. And for many women, the consequences were not nearly as positive as Mrs. Lathrop’s letter would have us believe.

通过将这封信与一系列其他资料进行比较，我们可以更好地理解拉思罗普夫人所处的历史背景，并更深入地了解她所处的时代以及这封信的具体来源。理解拉思罗普夫人促使我们思考地域和阶级差异。这种更广阔的背景对于理解拉思罗普夫人与20世纪20年代其他女性的异同至关重要。我们往往将技术变革视为进步，而没有充分考虑它们对不同群体的影响。尽管拉思罗普夫人对新技术感到欣喜，但随着时间的推移，这可能意味着她需要承担比以往更多的家务劳动。相比之下，1921年尚未获得权力的贫困农村妇女可能受益最大，因为她们一直以来都承担着家务。无论如何，新技术对女性工作的影响远比拉思罗普夫人的信中所揭示的更为深刻。她的信是了解一个时代的窗口，但也仅此而已。我们只能透过这扇窗口看到一部分。但在窗口之外，是一个更广阔、更复杂的世界，难以用简单的概括来概括。拉思罗普夫人的故事和相关资料有助于我们的学生应对这些复杂情况。

In comparing this one letter to a range of sources, we can appreciate Mrs. Lathrop in her historical context, and better understand both the period and the individual source. Understanding Mrs. Lathrop makes us consider regional and class differences. This broader context is necessary to see Mrs. Lathrop as both similar to and different from other women in the 1920s. We tend to think of the technological changes as improvements without fully considering how they affected different groups. Though Mrs. Lathrop was thrilled with her new technology, over time it meant she probably had to do more housework than before. In contrast, the poor and rural women who were yet to receive power in 1921 likely benefited the most, given that they had always done their own housework. Regardless, the new technology altered women’s work in more profound ways than Mrs. Lathrop’s letter indicates. Her letter is a window on an era, but only that. We can see just as much as that one window allows. But beyond that window is a broader, more complex world that resists facile generalizations. Mrs. Lathrop’s story and the accompanying sources help our students navigate these complexities.

为什么要讲述拉思罗普夫人的故事？

Why Teach About Mrs. Lathrop?

代表性：一封信能告诉我们多少？当学生们第一次读到拉思罗普夫人写给托马斯·爱迪生的信时，许多人得出结论：1921年电力对每个人都产生了积极的影响。他们接受了拉思罗普夫人的印象，并想当然地认为当时所有人对电气化和新电器都有相同的反应。这种概括的倾向很自然，但这样做会让学生们忽略那个时代的复杂性，也忽略了电力和新技术带来的深远影响。

Representativeness: How Much Can We Learn from One Letter? When students first read Mrs. Lathrop’s letter to Thomas Edison, many conclude that electricity positively influenced everyone in 1921. They take Mrs. Lathrop’s impressions and assume that all people at this time had the same reaction to electrification and new appliances. The tendency to generalize is natural, but in doing so, students miss the complexities of the time period and miss the long-range impact of electricity and new technology.

社会心理学家谈到“生动性效应”，即数据的色彩和即时性会影响我们对典型性和代表性的判断。诚然，拉思罗普夫人的信生动地展现了她的生活——作为一份史料，它既富有表现力又令人难忘；而且，由于信的开头有爱迪生的手写批注，它具有其他二手资料难以企及的真实性。

Social psychologists talk about a “vividness effect” in which the color and immediacy of data skew our judgments of typicality and representativeness. To be sure, Mrs. Lathrop’s letter provides a vivid peek inside her life—as a source, it is expressive and memorable, and given Edison’s handwritten note at the top, it possesses an authenticity shared by few secondary sources.

但正是这封信吸引我们的特质，也可能误导我们。拉思罗普夫人的信讲述了爱迪生的发明如何改变了一位受过良好教育、家境优渥的女性的生活。1921年，她拥有的家用电器，大多数美国人直到很久以后才拥有。

But the very qualities that attract us to this letter can lead us astray. Mrs. Lathrop’s letter tells how Edison’s inventions transformed the life of an educated woman of privilege who in 1921 owned appliances that most Americans did not own until much later.

毫无疑问，爱迪生的发明改变了拉思罗普的生活。但这些发明要普及到普通美国民众，尤其是在农村地区，还需要很多年。将拉思罗普夫人的信件与其他文献和数据来源进行比对，能够促使学生进行更批判性的阅读，并将拉思罗普夫人的经历置于历史背景中进行考察。一旦他们开始意识到拉思罗普夫人的经历只是众多类似事件中的一个，他们就能对当时的时代背景、女性历史和科技发展有一个更全面的认识。一封信只能讲述拉思罗普夫人的故事，而无法反映整个国家的历史。

No doubt Edison’s inventions transformed Lathrop’s life. But it would be many years before these inventions would reach the average American, particularly in rural areas. Corroborating Mrs. Lathrop’s letter with other documents and data sources pushes students to read more critically and place Mrs. Lathrop’s experience into historical context. Once they begin to see Mrs. Lathrop’s experience as one of many, they gain a more complex view of the time period, women’s history, and technology. One letter tells us about Mrs. Lathrop; it does not tell us about the country as a whole.

观点：历史视角的比较。我们往往将历史变迁视为从落后状态向先进状态的进步。美国历史教科书也支持这样一种观点：美国的历史是一个永无止境的进步史：每一次历史事件都让我们离建国之初的理想更近一步。然而，事实上，历史变迁对人们的影响各不相同。将历史变迁简单地描述为完全的好或坏未免过于片面。生活远比这复杂得多。

Point of View: Comparing Historical Perspectives. We tend to view historical change as progress from a less enlightened state to an advanced state. U.S. history textbooks support the notion that the American story is one of unending progress: With each event we move closer to the ideals set out in the founding of this nation. In reality, historical changes affect people differently. Portraying historical change as completely good or bad oversimplifies the matter. Life is more complicated.

要了解任何一项技术的影响，我们必须问：谁受益？当学生们核实历史资料时，他们的视野便超越了拉思罗普夫人，得以窥见20世纪20年代其他女性的经历。多元的历史视角能够提供更完整的历史观，并帮助学生理解复杂的因果关系。

To understand the impact of any technology, we must ask: Who benefits? As students corroborate historical sources, they see beyond Mrs. Lathrop and gain a glimpse of other women’s experiences in the 1920s. Multiple historical perspectives can give a more complete view of history and help students see complex cause-effect relationships.

历史证据：利用数字数据和互联网了解过去。本课不仅让学生有机会阅读书面文献，还提供利用数字数据和互联网的机会。通过简单的网络搜索和阅读相关的历史资料，学生可以接触到统计数据，从而将拉思罗普与同时代的人进行比较。由于历史记录并不完整——我们并不确切知道1921年堪萨斯州诺顿镇哪些人拥有电力和家用电器——本课使用来自费城等地和乡村农场的数据来研究城乡差异。从不完整的数据中得出结论总是需要进行推断。但随意猜测和有根据的推断之间有着巨大的差别。本课让学生有机会接触新的证据形式，并教会他们对得出的结论保持谨慎的态度。

Historical Evidence: Using Numerical Data and the Internet to Understand the Past. This lesson not only gives students the chance to read written documents, but also presents an opportunity to use numerical data and the Internet. Through simple web searches and reading accompanying historical sources, students encounter statistical data that allow them to compare Lathrop to her contemporaries. Because the historical record is incomplete—we don’t know exactly who had and didn’t have electricity and appliances in Norton, Kansas, in 1921—this lesson uses data from places like Philadelphia and rural farms to study the difference between urban and rural areas. Drawing conclusions from incomplete data always involves making inferences. But there is a big difference between a wild guess and an educated one. This lesson gives students the opportunity to engage with new forms of evidence and teaches them to be tentative in the conclusions they draw.

你会如何使用这些材料？

How Might You Use These Materials?

情景一（1-2小时课程）。拉思罗普夫人对20世纪20年代的女性有多大的代表性？利用这些资料和工具，引导学生阅读和分析多种资料，并就她的代表性问题提出基于证据的论点。

Scenario 1 (1–2 Hour Lesson). How representative was Mrs. Lathrop of women in the 1920s? Use these sources and tools to engage students in reading and analyzing multiple sources and creating an evidence-based argument about her representativeness.

与学生一起阅读拉思罗普夫人的信（资料来源 5.1），并询问他们这封信揭示了 20 世纪 20 年代女性的哪些特征。使用工具 5.1帮助学生将拉思罗普夫人置于当时美国女性的整体背景下进行理解。学生将使用工具 5.1，通过互联网查找拉思罗普夫人的家乡，并访问弗吉尼亚大学在线图书馆数据库中的 1920 年人口普查数据。我们建议学生两人一组或小组合作，以鼓励他们讨论发现，并为他们提供互相帮助的机会。在查阅各种资料并阅读拉思罗普夫人的信后，请学生就拉思罗普夫人的代表性提出论点。这可以作为全班讨论的良好开端。讨论结束后，请学生撰写一篇短文，阐述他们的结论并提供佐证。

Read Mrs. Lathrop’s letter (Source 5.1) with students and ask what it tells them about women in the 1920s. Use Tool 5.1 to help students set Mrs. Lathrop into a broader picture of American women at this time. Using Tool 5.1, students will use the World Wide Web to examine the region Mrs. Lathrop came from and access 1920 Census data at the University of Virginia’s online library database. We suggest having students work in pairs or groups to encourage discussion of discoveries and to give students opportunities to help each other. After consulting various resources and reading Mrs. Lathrop’s letter, students are then asked to make an argument about Lathrop’s representativeness. This is a good starting point for a whole-class discussion. Following the discussion, ask students to write a brief essay giving their conclusions with supporting evidence.

学生可以阅读资料 5.2和5.3继续探究，这两份资料分别提供了当时一个城市地区的统计数据和美国乡村概况。工具 5.2帮助学生利用这些新资料，从更广泛的视角，探讨拉思罗普夫人在 20 世纪 20 年代美国社会中的典型性。这些资料引导学生不仅要考虑地域差异，还要考虑阶级差异。课后，讨论学生对拉思罗普夫人的看法。要求学生引用证据来支持他们的结论。将这些回答与之前（工具 5.1末尾）的回答进行比较，看看证据是否以及如何改变了他们的结论。讨论结束后，要求学生修改工具 5.2底部问题 8 的结论。学生应使用资料中的证据来解释他们的结论是否发生了变化以及原因。

Students can continue this inquiry by reading Sources 5.2 and 5.3, which give statistics for one urban area and an overview of rural America at the time. Tool 5.2 helps students use these new sources to explore Mrs. Lathrop’s typicality against a much broader portrait of the United States in the 1920s. The sources direct students to consider not only regional differences but class differences, too. At the end of the lesson, discuss students’ ideas about Mrs. Lathrop. Ask students to cite evidence to support their conclusions. Compare these responses to earlier ones (at the end of Tool 5.1) and see how and if the evidence has altered their conclusions. After the discussion, ask students to write a revised conclusion to Question 8 at the bottom of Tool 5.2. Students should use evidence from the sources to explain whether their conclusions have changed and why.

情景二（1-2小时课程）。20世纪20年代，电力和新技术如何影响人们的生活？利用这些材料引导学生阅读和分析，并就20世纪20年代技术的影响提出基于证据的论点。

Scenario 2 (1–2 Hour Lesson). How did electricity and new technology influence people in the 1920s? Use these materials to engage students in reading and analysis to create an evidence-based argument about the impact of technology in the 1920s.

请学生在开始本课之前重读拉思罗普夫人的信（资料 5.1 ），或者先完成情景 1，然后再进行本课的学习。本课结合了……参考资料 5.4和5.5，并结合工具 5.3，思考 20 世纪 20 年代电力的影响，让学生思考电力对不同背景女性的影响。

Ask students to reread Mrs. Lathrop’s letter (Source 5.1) before starting this lesson, or complete Scenario 1 and then move on to this lesson, which combines Sources 5.4 and 5.5 with Tool 5.3 to consider the effects of electricity in the 1920s as students ponder the impact of electricity on women from different backgrounds.

首先阅读拉思罗普太太的信。全班或分组，根据信中描述的情况，制作一份拉思罗普太太日常生活的日程表。让学生列出信中能够体现拉思罗普对生活感受的词语和短语。阅读材料5.4和5.5，比较富裕女性和农村贫困女性的洗衣任务。让学生想象不同的家庭主妇会如何描述她们的生活。学生会用哪些证据来构建这些画面？使用维恩图，让学生与同伴合作，对比上层阶级女性在用电前后的生活。这将帮助学生了解一个社会阶层的变化与延续，以及电力如何改变了她们的家务劳动。

Begin with Mrs. Lathrop’s letter. As a class or in groups, create a schedule of Mrs. Lathrop’s daily life as reported in her letter. Have students list words and phrases from the letter that indicate how Lathrop feels about her life. Have students read Sources 5.4 and 5.5 to compare laundry tasks for affluent women vs. the rural poor. Ask students to imagine how different housewives would describe their lives. What evidence will students use to construct these images? Using a Venn diagram, ask students to work with a partner to contrast the lives of upper-class women before and after electricity. This will give students a sense of change and continuity for one social class, and the ways electricity altered their housework.

本章的一个重点是通过查阅资料来理解20世纪20年代科技的影响。工具5.3将用于评估这一目标。此外，学生可以制作一个T型图，一侧列出科技在20世纪20年代对女性的积极影响，另一侧列出消极影响。请学生写下他们的初步印象，然后在查阅资料的过程中，将想法、引文和信息添加到T型图中。请学生在学习过程中定期回顾并修改他们的初步答案。接下来，请学生围绕以下问题撰写一段文字或一篇完整的文章：1921年科技对女性的影响主要是积极的还是消极的？与所有文章写作一样，请学生引用资料中的证据来支持他们的论点。

A major focus of this chapter is to understand the impact of technology in the 1920s through corroborating sources. Tool 5.3 will assess this objective. In addition, students could create a T chart, with positive influences of technology on women in the 1920s on one side and negative influences on the other. Ask students to give their initial impression and then add ideas, quotations, and information to this chart as they work with the sources. Ask students to revisit their initial responses and revise them periodically throughout the lesson as they learn more. Follow this up with a paragraph or full essay in response to the question: Was the impact of technology on women in 1921 mostly positive or negative? As with every essay, ask students to draw on evidence from sources to support their arguments.

情景三（1小时课程）。20世纪20年代的家庭主妇们都担心些什么？利用网络资源，探究20世纪20年代家庭主妇们面临的挑战。

Scenario 3 (1 Hour Lesson). What were housewives concerned about in the 1920s? Use online resources to examine the challenges housewives faced in the 1920s.

阅读拉思罗普太太的信，并询问学生信中反映了她怎样的生活方式。为了了解那个时代多位家庭主妇的观点，请访问乔治·梅森大学历史与新媒体中心的“历史要事”（History Matters）网站。在那里，搜索题为“‘我只是一台机器’：家庭主妇分析她们的问题”的资料。

Read Mrs. Lathrop’s letter and ask students what it says about Mrs. Lathrop’s lifestyle. To consider multiple housewives’ perspectives from this era, go to the History Matters website at George Mason University’s Center for History and New Media. There, search for a source housed at History Matters entitled, “‘I am only a piece of machinery’: Housewives analyze their problems.”

在这里，学生可以阅读1923年寄给《妇女家庭伴侣》杂志的信件，信中家庭主妇们分享了她们遇到的家庭问题和解决方法（我们最喜欢的是题为“永不破裂的循环”的那封信）。给学生提出一个引导性问题，例如“你对20世纪20年代的家庭主妇有什么看法？请引用资料中的证据来支持你的结论。”你可以回顾拉思罗普太太的信，看看她与《妇女家庭伴侣》杂志上的女性有何不同。拉思罗普太太可能会给《妇女家庭伴侣》杂志写些什么？无论读者是谁，她的语气是否依然乐观开朗？本课旨在示范历史调查、提问和资料比较的过程。

Here students may read letters sent to the Woman’s Home Companion in 1923 in which housewives shared household problems and solutions (our favorite is entitled “The Unbroken Circle”). Give students a focus question like “What conclusions can you make about housewives in the 1920s? Cite evidence from the sources to support your conclusions.” You can return to Mrs. Lathrop’s letter to see how Lathrop compares to the women of the Woman’s Home Companion. What might Mrs. Lathrop have written to the Woman’s Home Companion? Would her tone have remained as upbeat and happy, regardless of audience? This lesson models the process of historical investigation, questioning, and comparison of sources.

另一项作业（见工具 5.4）要求学生选择 1921 年的四组女性（贫困城市女性、贫困农村女性、富裕农村女性、富裕城市女性），并安排每位女性一天的生活。学生应为每位女性制定一份每日日程表。学生应参考本章内容以及历史与新媒体中心网站上的资料，并引用这些资料，以使学生的作业与 1920 年代美国的真实情况相符。之后，学生可以回答以下问题：拉思罗普夫人对 1921 年的女性有多大的代表性？

An alternative assignment (see Tool 5.4) asks students to select four groups of women in 1921 (poor urban, poor rural, wealthy rural, wealthy urban) and schedule a day from each woman’s life. Students should construct a daily schedule for each woman. Sources from this chapter, as well as those from the Center for History and New Media website, should be consulted and cited to ground students’ work in the realities of 1920s America. Students could then write a response to the question: How representative was Mrs. Lathrop of women in 1921?

资源和工具

Sources and Tools

来源5.1：亲爱的R.E.迪森先生（修改版）

SOURCE 5.1: DEAR MR. EDISON (MODIFIED)

来源：摘自 WC Lathrop 夫人 1921 年 3 月 5 日写给 Thomas Edison 的信。

Source: Excerpt from Mrs. W. C. Lathrop’s letter to Thomas Edison, March 5, 1921.

资料来源5.2 ：费城电器所有权（修改版）

SOURCE 5.2: APPLIANCE OWNERSHIP IN PHILADELPHIA (MODIFIED)

来源：CJ Russell，“费城调查”。NELA 大会论文集，1921 年。纽约市联合爱迪生图书馆藏本。引自 David Nye，《电气化美国：新技术的社会意义，1880–1940》（马萨诸塞州剑桥：麻省理工学院出版社，1990 年），第 303 页。

Source: C. J. Russell, “Philadelphia Survey.” Proceedings, NELA Convention, 1921. Copy in the Consolidated Edison Library, New York City. Cited in David Nye, Electrifying America: Social Meanings of a New Technology, 1880–1940 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990), 303.

资料来源5.3：美国农村地区的电力（修改后）

SOURCE 5.3: ELECTRICITY IN RURAL AMERICA (MODIFIED)

资料来源：摘自 D. Clayton Brown，《美国农村电力：农村电气化之战》（康涅狄格州韦斯特波特：格林伍德出版社，1980 年）。第 xv-xvi 页和第 3-5 页。

Source: Excerpts from D. Clayton Brown, Electricity for Rural America: The Fight for the REA (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980). xv–xvi and 3–5.

资料来源5.4： 20世纪20 年代富裕女性的工作（修改版）

SOURCE 5.4: AFFLUENT WOMEN’S WORK IN THE 1920S (MODIFIED)

来源：摘自 Ruth Schwartz Cowan，《母亲的更多工作：从开放式炉灶到微波炉的家庭技术讽刺》（纽约：基础书籍出版社，1983 年），第 178 页。

Source: Excerpt from Ruth Schwartz Cowan, More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave (New York: Basic Books, 1983), 178.

资料来源5.5： 20世纪20年代贫困农村妇女的工作（修改版）

SOURCE 5.5: POOR, RURAL WOMEN’S WORK IN THE 1920S (MODIFIED)

来源：摘自罗伯特·卡罗，《林登·约翰逊的岁月：通往权力之路》（纽约：阿尔弗雷德·A·克诺夫出版社，1982 年），第 504-509 页。

Source: Excerpt from Robert Caro, The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982), 504–509.

工具5.1：将资源置于背景之中

TOOL 5.1: PUTTING SOURCES INTO CONTEXT

---

说明：为了更好地理解拉思罗普夫人的世界观，请试着想象一下她写这封信的时间和地点。阅读资料5.1并回答下列问题。

Directions: To better understand Mrs. Lathrop’s view of the world, try to imagine the time and place in which she wrote this letter. Read Source 5.1 and answer the following questions.

1. 这是在哪里写的？
   
   
   
   
2. Where was this written?
   
   
   
   
3. 请访问http://maps.google.com/并搜索 Lathrop 夫人的城镇和州。
   1. 这个城镇位于美国哪个地区？
      
      
      
      
   2. 这个城镇位于该州的哪个地区？
      
      
      
      
   3. 距离当时最近的两大城市——托皮卡和丹佛——有多远？
      
      
      
      
4. Go to http://maps.google.com/ and search for Mrs. Lathrop’s town and state.
   1. In what region of the United States is this town located?
      
      
      
      
   2. In what part of the state is this town?
      
      
      
      
   3. How far is it to the closest major cities of that time period—Topeka and Denver?
      
      
      
      
5. 前往弗吉尼亚大学图书馆的历史人口普查浏览器（http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu）。
   1. 点击查看1920年人口普查数据。
   2. 搜索两个变量：总人口和每平方英里人口。
   3. 请注意下表中堪萨斯州的数据。
   4. 将堪萨斯州的每平方英里人口与其他州进行比较——滚动到页面底部，按每平方英里人口数降序排列数据。点击“提交”。从上往下数，看看堪萨斯州的人口密度排名如何。
   5. 以堪萨斯州为例，请注意下表中诺顿县的数据。
   6. 将诺顿县的每平方英里人口与其他堪萨斯州县进行比较——滚动到页面底部，按每平方英里人口数降序排列数据。点击“提交”。从上往下数，即可查看诺顿县的人口密度排名。
6. Go to the Historical Census Browser at the University of Virginia’s library (http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu).
   1. Click on the 1920 Census data.
   2. Search for two variables: total population and population per square mile.
   3. Note the figures for Kansas in the table below.
   4. Compare the population per square mile for Kansas to other states—go to the bottom of the page and sort the data by population per square mile in descending order. Click “submit.” Count from the top to see where Kansas ranked in terms of population density.
   5. Specifying Kansas, note the figures for Norton County in the table below.
   6. Compare the population per square mile for Norton County with other counties in Kansas—go to the bottom of the page and sort the data by population per square mile in descending order. Click “submit.” Count from the top to see where Norton County ranked in terms of population density.
7. 你认为拉思罗普太太居住的小镇是乡村、城市还是郊区？为什么？
   
   
   
   
   
   
8. Would you characterize Mrs. Lathrop’s town as rural, urban, or suburban? Why?
   
   
   
   
   
   
9. 这份资料是什么时候撰写的？
   
   
   
   
   
   
10. When was this source written?
    
    
    
    
    
    
11. 在撰写此文时还发生了哪些其他事件？列举当时发生的三个事件或问题，并解释它们对于理解此文献的重要性。
    
    
    
    
    
    
12. What else was happening at the time this was written? List 3 events or issues of the day, and explain why they might be important to understanding this source.
    
    
    
    
    
    
13. 根据拉思罗普太太的信，她拥有哪些物质财产？请列出来。
    
    
    
    
    
    
14. According to her letter, what material goods does Mrs. Lathrop own? List them.
    
    
    
    
    
    
15. 列出拉思罗普夫人信中可能表明其社会地位的细节。
    
    
    
    
    
    
16. List details from Mrs. Lathrop’s letter that might indicate her social status.
    
    
    
    
    
    
17. 你认为拉思罗普夫人对20世纪20年代堪萨斯州的女性有多大的代表性？请结合你的阅读和研究细节来支持你的答案。
18. How representative of women in Kansas in the 1920s do you think Mrs. Lathrop was? Use details from your reading and research to support your answer.

工具5.2：将拉思罗普夫人与她的同时代人进行比较

TOOL 5.2: COMPARING MRS. LATHROP TO HER CONTEMPORARIES

---

1. 1920年堪萨斯州有多少百分比的农场通电？（提示：参见资料5.3）
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. What percentage of farms in Kansas had electricity in 1920? (Hint: See Source 5.3)
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. 根据资料 5.3，1920年哪些类型的农村或农场家庭用上了电？请结合资料中的证据进行解释。
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
4. Based on Source 5.3, what kind of rural or farm households had electricity in 1920? Explain using evidence from the sources.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
5. 为什么农村家庭没有更多用上电？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
6. Why didn’t more rural households have electricity?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
7. 费城位于美国的哪个地区？1920年费城是城市地区还是乡村地区？你是如何判断的？请使用1920年人口普查数据来证明你的答案。
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
8. In what part of the country is Philadelphia located? Was Philadelphia an urban or rural area in 1920? How do you know? Use the 1920 Census data to justify your answer.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
9. 拿出你在工具 5.1中为拉思罗普太太列出的物品和电器清单。将她拥有的物品与 1921 年费城贫困家庭、中等家庭和较富裕家庭的物品进行比较。
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
10. Take the list of material goods and appliances that you made in Tool 5.1 for Mrs. Lathrop. Compare what she owns with poor, average, and better-class homes in Philadelphia in 1921.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
11. 拉思罗普太太的家庭与农村家庭、城市家庭、上层阶级家庭和下层阶级家庭相比如何？
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
12. How does Mrs. Lathrop’s household compare with rural, urban, upper-class, and lower-class households?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
13. 根据这些资料和1920年的人口普查，你能得出关于拉思罗普夫人社会地位的哪些结论？请结合资料中的证据解释你的结论依据。
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
14. Based on these sources and the 1920 Census, what conclusions can you make about Mrs. Lathrop’s social status? Explain the basis for your conclusions using evidence from the sources.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
15. 拉思罗普夫人对1921年的女性有多大的代表性？请引用资料中的证据来支持你的观点。
16. How representative was Mrs. Lathrop of women in 1921? Cite evidence from the sources to support your ideas.

工具5.3 ： 20世纪20年代的女性：20世纪20年代电力的影响

TOOL 5.3: THE 1920S WOMAN: THE EFFECTS OF ELECTRICITY IN THE 1920S

---

1. 拉思罗普太太向爱迪生先生描述了她一天中的哪些活动？请参考资料 5.1，列出她的活动。
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. What does Mrs. Lathrop do during the day that she describes to Mr. Edison? Using Source 5.1, list her activities.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. 你认为拉思罗普太太的日常生活与大多数农村家庭主妇的日常生活相比如何？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
4. How do you think Mrs. Lathrop’s daily life compares to that of the majority of rural housewives?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
5. 利用资料 5.4和5.5，比较 20 世纪 20 年代农村贫困家庭和“舒适”或上层阶级家庭主妇的洗衣过程。
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
6. Using Sources 5.4 and 5.5, compare the process of doing laundry in the 1920s for the rural poor and “comfortable,” or upper-class, housewives.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
7. 重新审视资料 5.1。列出一些词语和短语，以表明拉思罗普夫人对她生活的感受。
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
8. Reexamine Source 5.1. List some words and phrases that indicate how Mrs. Lathrop feels about her life.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
9. 你认为拉思罗普夫人为什么在信中没有对电说任何负面的话？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
10. Why do you think Mrs. Lathrop did not say anything negative about electricity in her letter?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
11. 你认为拉思罗普夫人的同龄人，那些生活在没有电的农村地区的人们，会如何描述他们的生活？
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
12. How do you think Mrs. Lathrop’s peers in rural areas that lacked electricity would describe their lives?
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
13. 根据考恩的说法，电力和新技术是如何改变拉思罗普太太的生活的？（提示：将拉思罗普太太与她的母亲进行比较。使用下面的维恩图来了解这些变化。）
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
14. According to Cowan, how did electricity and new technology change Mrs. Lathrop’s life? (Hint: Compare Mrs. Lathrop with her mother. Use the Venn diagram below to get a sense of these changes.)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
15. 1921年，电力改变了哪些人的生活？这些改变是积极的还是消极的？请结合你所掌握的证据解释原因。
16. Whose lives were changed by electricity in 1921? Were these changes positive? Explain why or why not, using the evidence before you.

工具5.4：评估学生对视角、代表性和佐证的理解​​​

TOOL 5.4: ASSESSING STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF PERSPECTIVE, REPRESENTATIVENESS, AND CORROBORATION

---

说明：利用所提供的资料，为四位生活在 1921 年的女性制定一天的作息时间表。请引用帮助你制定这些女性作息时间表的资料。

Directions: Using the sources provided, create a schedule for a day in the life of four different women living in 1921. Cite the sources that helped you construct these women’s schedules.

哪个日程安排最像拉思罗普太太的？你是怎么知道的？

Which schedule seems most like Mrs. Lathrop’s? How do you know?

 

 

拉思罗普太太的日程安排与其他人的日程安排相比如何？

How does Mrs. Lathrop’s schedule compare to the other schedules?

推荐资源

Suggested Resources

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/women/womensbook.html

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/women/womensbook.html

这个由福特汉姆大学的保罗·哈尔索尔运营的页面，是众多互联网历史资源库之一。该页面专门提供指向北美及世界各地女性历史相关文献和网站的链接。

This page, run by Paul Halsall at Fordham University, is one of several Internet History Sourcebooks. This particular page features links to documents and websites that focus on women’s history both in North America and around the world.

http://www.womenshistorymonth.gov/

http://www.womenshistorymonth.gov/

这个由美国国会图书馆制作的页面，收藏了大量与美国女性历史相关的原始文献。其中包含众多展览和藏品，包括照片、广告、宣传海报和文本文件。

This page, produced by the Library of Congress, has a rich and varied collection of primary documents related to women’s history in the United States. There is a long list of exhibits and collections that include photographs, advertisements, propaganda posters, and text-based documents.

http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/ww/

http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/ww/

该网站由哈佛大学运营，重点关注 1800 年至 1930 年间美国女性的工作。该馆藏包括图像和文本文件。

Run by Harvard University, this site focuses on women’s work in the United States from 1800 to 1930. The collection includes images and text-based documents.

http://www.nwhm.org/exhibits/index.html

http://www.nwhm.org/exhibits/index.html

这个由美国国家妇女历史博物馆运营的页面包含了几个关于美国妇女历史不同方面的网络展览。

This page, run by the National Women’s History Museum, includes several cyber exhibits of different aspects of women’s history in America.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=46#

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=46#

请访问Our Documents.Gov网站（由美国国家历史日、美国国家档案馆和记录管理局、美国自由军团、西门子、美国新闻与世界报道和历史频道合作创建）查看托马斯·爱迪生的电灯泡专利申请。

See Thomas Edison’s patent application for the electric light bulb at this site, run by the Our Documents.Gov website (a cooperative effort by National History Day, National Archives and Records Administration, USA Freedom Corps, Siemens, U.S. News & World Report, and The History Channel).

http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=408#LESSON1

http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=408#LESSON1

该页面由美国国家人文基金会运营，提供了一系列课程，帮助学生了解 19 世纪末 20 世纪初新技术引入前后人们的生活。

This page, run by the National Endowment for the Humanities, offers a series of lessons to help students understand life before and after new technologies were introduced in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

http://www1.assumption.edu/WHW/

http://www1.assumption.edu/WHW/

本页面由美国国家人文基金会资助，并由圣母升天学院、美国古物学会、教育联盟和伍斯特妇女历史项目联合运营。页面内容涵盖丰富的原始文献资料以及教师资源，并提供将妇女历史融入课程的教学思路。

This page is the product of a grant by the National Endowment of the Humanities and is run by Assumption College, the American Antiquarian Society, the Alliance for Education, and the Worcester Women’s History Project. It includes a rich collection of primary documents as well as teacher resources with ideas for integrating women’s history into the curriculum.

“男男女女蜷缩在屋里，出门时用手帕捂住鼻子，戴上护目镜保护眼睛。”约翰·斯坦贝克荣获普利策奖的小说《愤怒的葡萄》开篇便描绘了20世纪30年代中期俄克拉荷马州生活的残酷现实。人们熟悉的生活被尘土吞噬，许多人，就像斯坦贝克笔下的乔德一家一样，被迫逃离家园，去寻找新的生活。乔德一家沿着66号公路跋涉，在加州艰难地寻找稳定的工作，正是斯坦贝克这部自1939年出版以来就吸引着无数读者的故事。这部小说不仅情节引人入胜，更是一部政治和社会批判之作，揭露了加州农场工人遭受的剥削和虐待。

“Men and women huddled in their houses, and they tied handkerchiefs over their noses when they went out, and wore goggles to protect their eyes.” The opening pages of John Steinbeck’s Pulitzer Prize–winning novel The Grapes of Wrath describe the grim realities of living in Oklahoma in the mid-1930s. Life as people knew it disappeared, blown away by the dust, and many, like Steinbeck’s Joad family, fled their homes to make a new life. The Joads’ trip on Route 66 and their struggles to find sustainable work in California are the subject of Steinbeck’s tale, one that has captivated readers since its appearance in 1939. Not only is it an engaging story, Steinbeck’s novel was a political and social critique that exposed the exploitation and mistreatment of California’s farm workers.

许多人都熟悉20世纪30年代“尘暴”时期离开受灾地区的人们的故事。俄克拉荷马人、多萝西娅·兰格的照片、伍迪·格思里的歌曲，还有乔德一家——这些细节都深深地烙印在我们的集体记忆中。但是，那些在长达八年似乎永无止境的干旱中没有离开平原的人们呢？那些勇敢的农民的故事呢？他们坚守家园，眼睁睁地看着土地在他们脚下漂移、消失——尘土从没有防护的缝隙中渗入他们的房屋，或者更可怕的是，化作一片黑云，吞噬一切。这些故事不像移民的故事那样能引起人们的共鸣，也不像移民的故事那样具有象征意义。然而，它们和那些更容易被讲述的故事一样，都是我们历史的重要组成部分。

The story of those who left the afflicted region during the 1930s Dust Bowl is familiar to many. Okies, Dorothea Lange’s photos, Woody Guthrie’s songs, and the Joads—these particulars are lodged in our collective memory. But what about the people who didn’t leave the Plains during what seemed an interminable 8 years of drought? What about the stories of the intrepid farmers who stayed behind even as the land drifted and disappeared beneath them—as dust crept into their homes through unprotected cracks or, more ominously, descended in a black cloud that smothered all it touched? Such stories don’t trigger the same recognition or touchstone quality that those of the migrants do. Yet they are just as much a part of our past as those more easily recounted.

历史充满了故事。故事是我们分享过往岁月、理解历史的方式。通常，正是故事激发了我们探索过去及其细节和意义的兴趣。而这些故事需要我们做出无数的选择：我们要讲述谁的故事？我们要关注哪些事件？为了准确地讲述过去的故事，哪些细节至关重要？与斯坦贝克的精彩小说不同，历史故事必须遵循文献记录，并以证据为支撑。¹ 在本章中，我们将探讨关于“尘暴”的各种故事，首先是幸存者的故事，然后是解释的故事——“尘暴”是^如何发生的？历史学家不再局限于描述性的故事，而是讲述解释性的故事，他们对这场环境和人为灾难的解释方式也随着时间的推移而不断变化。所有这些方面对于理解“尘暴”以及我们讲述的关于它的故事都至关重要。

History is full of stories. Stories are how we share what happened in bygone days and how we make sense of that past. Often, they are what initially piques our interest to explore the past and its specifics and significance. And these stories require making innumerable choices: Whose story will we tell? What events will we focus on? What are the critical specifics for weaving an accurate story about that past? Unlike Steinbeck’s stunning piece of fiction, historical stories must stick to the documentary record and be supported by evidence.¹ In this chapter, we examine various stories about the Dust Bowl, first the stories of those left behind, then stories of explanation—how did the Dust Bowl happen? Historians move beyond descriptive stories to tell explanatory stories, and the ways that they have explained this environmental and human disaster have changed over time. All of these aspects are integral to understanding the Dust Bowl and the stories we tell about it.

我们该讲述谁的故事？

Whose Story Do We Tell?

卡罗琳·亨德森是一位教师，1907年搬到了俄克拉荷马州狭长地带，那一年印第安领地和俄克拉荷马领地合并成为一个州。卡罗琳在那里生活了近60年，遇到了她的丈夫，建立了自己的家园，养育了一个女儿，获得了文学硕士学位，并为杂志和期刊撰稿。她的文章以清晰生动的描述，帮助人们关注到“尘暴”时期居民的苦难。

Caroline Henderson was a schoolteacher who moved to the Oklahoma Panhandle in 1907, the year the Indian and Oklahoma territories joined to become a state. Caroline would spend almost 60 years there, meeting her husband, building a homestead, raising a daughter, earning her master’s degree in literature, and writing for magazines and journals. Her articles, filled with clear and compelling descriptions, helped to bring national attention to the plight of the Dust Bowl residents during its darkest days.

“尘暴区”指的是20世纪30年代遭受侵蚀和沙尘暴袭击最严重的美国大平原地区。该地区涵盖俄克拉荷马州、德克萨斯州、堪萨斯州、科罗拉多州的部分地区，以及新墨西哥州和内布拉斯加州的一小部分地区，面积约1亿英亩，占大平原总面积的三分之一以上。在该地区，“沙尘暴影响区”的范围和位置不断变化，促使历史学家唐纳德·沃斯特将尘暴区称为“一个事件，也是一个地域”。^受灾最严重的地区是德克萨斯州和俄克拉荷马州的狭长地带。堪萨斯州的西南角。在风暴最严重的几年（1935-1937 年）之间，这片不断变化的风暴区覆盖了南部平原约 5000 万英亩的土地。

The “Dust Bowl” refers to the region of the Great Plains that suffered the erosion and dust storms in the 1930s most acutely. This region, encompassing parts of Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Colorado, and smaller areas of New Mexico and Nebraska, extended approximately 100 million acres, or over one-third of the Great Plains. Within that region, the “blow area” shifted in size and location, prompting historian Donald Worster to call the Dust Bowl “an event as well as a locality.”² The hardest-hit areas were the Texas and Oklahoma Panhandles and the southwestern corner of Kansas. Between the worst years of the storms, 1935–1937, this shifting blow area covered approximately 50 million acres of the southern plains.

这片区域是美国大陆最后几个有人定居的地区之一。由于树木稀少、降雨稀少、气温高，这里曾被称为“美国大沙漠”和“无人区”。来自水源充足、气候湿润的南部、中西部和东部的^移民并不热衷于在这片半干旱的气候下耕作。而促进西部开发的铁路直到1916年才通达俄克拉荷马州狭长地带，进一步加剧了该地区的与世隔绝。

This area was one of the last regions in the continental United States to be settled. With few trees, little rainfall, and high temperatures, it had been called both the Great American Desert and No Man’s Land.³ Settlers from the verdant, water-rich South, Midwest, and East weren’t anxious to try farming in this semi-arid climate. And the railroads that facilitated westward settlement didn’t reach the Oklahoma Panhandle until 1916, adding to the region’s isolation.

卡罗琳·亨德森是20世纪初这片地区定居者中的一员。她见证了这片土地的繁荣时期，当时降雨量正常（尽管仍然稀少），战时粮食需求旺盛，铁路的修建也为经济带来了好运。但她经历的苦难远多于繁荣。而1932年至1940年“尘暴”肆虐期间，这些苦难几乎变得难以忍受^。

Caroline Henderson was part of the early-20th-century settlement of this region. She would be there during its prosperous years, when normal (if still sparse) rainfall, wartime demand for grain, and the railroad helped create economic good times. But she would suffer more hard times than good. And those hard times became almost unbearable during 1932–1940, the years of the Dust Bowl.⁴

1935年4月14日，一场巨大的沙尘暴袭击了该地区。科罗拉多州东南部巴卡县的JH·沃德看到一团不祥的浓厚沙尘暴从山上滚滚而来；他拍下了这令人恐惧的景象：沙尘暴逼近，吞噬着沿途的一切（资料来源6.1）。民谣歌手伍迪·格思里在那一天创作了一首名为《再见，很高兴认识你》（So Long, It's Been Good to Know Yuh）的歌曲，歌名令人毛骨悚然。格思里在歌中写道，他不得不离开位于“西德克萨斯平原”的家，因为他“不得不四处漂泊”，更令人不安的是，沙尘暴“如同雷霆般袭来”，仿佛“世界末日”，这捕捉到了邻居们的恐惧。那一天后来被称为“黑色星期日”，很可能是20世纪30年代袭击平原地区最严重的沙尘暴。第二天，“尘暴区”（Dust Bowl）一词就被美联社记者罗伯特·E·盖格创造出来。⁵

On April 14, 1935, a huge dust storm hit the region. J. H. Ward, in the southeastern county of Baca, Colorado, saw the ominous, thick cloud rolling over the hill toward him; he took photos of what must have been a terrifying sight as the cloud approached, swallowing everything in its path (Source 6.1). Folksinger Woody Guthrie would write a song that day, with the eerie title “So Long, It’s Been Good to Know Yuh.” Guthrie wrote about leaving his home on “the west Texas plains,” as he had “to be driftin’ along,” and more ominously that the dust storm “hit like thunder” and seemed like “the end of the world,” capturing the fear of his neighbors. That April day would come to be known as Black Sunday and was likely the worst dust storm that hit the Plains during the 1930s. The very next day, the term “Dust Bowl” was coined by Associated Press reporter Robert E. Geiger.⁵

在“尘土飞扬的30年代”，被称为“滚滚沙尘”和“黑色暴风雪”的沙尘暴相对频繁。1932年，该地区至少遭受了14次沙尘暴袭击；从1933年到1938年，沙尘暴的次数超过300次。 ⁶ 这些沙尘暴大多发生在冬春两季，它们遮天蔽日，席卷大地，侵入房屋、眼睛和肺部——一旦沙尘落下，便无处可逃。各个年龄段的人都患上了“沙尘肺炎”。建筑物和农作物被沙尘覆盖和摧毁，学校和城镇关闭，交通瘫痪，人们不禁怀疑世界末日是否已经降临，以及自己究竟做错了什么才落得如此下场。

Dust storms known as “rollers” and “black blizzards” were relatively frequent in the “dirty ’30s.” In 1932, at least 14 storms hit the region, and from 1933 to 1938, there were more than 300.⁶ Mostly occurring in the winter and spring, these storms blackened the sky, sweeping over and through the landscape, infiltrating homes, eyes, and lungs—once the dust descended, there was no escape. People of all ages suffered from “dust pneumonia.” Buildings and crops were covered and destroyed, schools and towns shut down, transportation stopped, and people wondered whether Armageddon had hit and what they had done to deserve it.

风暴肆虐了尘暴区，其影响范围远超尘暴区。巨大的尘埃云横跨大陆，抵达东部和南部沿海地区。1934年5月，《纽约时报》的头条新闻宣称：“巨大的尘埃云吹过1500英里，使纽约市昏暗5小时。”据估计，这片尘埃云宽达1800英里，重达3亿吨，使纽约市空气中的尘埃颗粒浓度增加了2.7倍。 ⁷在大西洋沿岸300英里处，船只报告甲板上覆盖着尘土，而后来的风暴则在墨西哥湾沿岸留下了尘埃残留物。 ⁸

The storms wreaked havoc on the Dust Bowl region and extended beyond. Giant clouds of dust advanced across the continent to both Eastern and Southern coasts. In May 1934, headlines in the New York Times proclaimed, “Huge Dust Cloud, Blown 1,500 Miles, Dims City 5 Hours.” That cloud was estimated to be 1,800 miles wide, weigh 300 million tons, and increase the dust particles in the air in New York City by 2.7 times.⁷ Three hundred miles off the Atlantic Coast, ships reported dust on their decks, while later storms left a residue along the Gulf Coast.⁸

但正如一位堪萨斯州居民所说，这场“黑色星期日”风暴是“有史以来最黑暗的一天”。9此前几周饱受猛烈风暴侵袭的居民们^{，对那天早晨的晴朗天气感到格外欣喜。然而，原本阳光明媚、气温在80华氏度左右、视野开阔的周日，却迅速演变成一场可怕的风暴，以至于宝琳·温克勒·}格雷后来回忆说，当时她觉得“世界末日到了”。10 这场风暴从北达科他州向南向西，最终抵达堪萨斯州和科罗拉多州，据报道，风暴宽度达200英里，移动速度为每小时65英里。气温骤降；沃德的照片与其他目击者的描述相呼应，展现了晴朗天空与滚滚而来的表层泥土之间的鲜明对比。“天空仿佛被分成了两个截然相反的世界……一片蓝天、金色阳光和宁静；……以及一道翻滚的黑色尘埃幕帘，令人胆寒。” ¹¹在堪萨斯州海斯，一个男孩和朋友玩耍时，他拼命往家跑，却没能躲过沙尘暴——第二天，人们发现他被沙尘掩埋窒息而死。难怪许多人逃离了沙尘暴区。这些沙尘暴如同无情的敌人，肆虐着居民的经济生计、健康和安全，威胁着他们的日常生活。

But the Black Sunday storm was what one Kansas resident called “the darkest day of all.”⁹ Residents who had suffered ferocious storms in prior weeks welcomed the fine weather that morning. Yet what started as a beautiful Sunday with temperatures in the 80s and a clear view of the horizon quickly descended into a storm so terrible that Pauline Winkler Grey later remembered thinking “it was the end of the world.”¹⁰ Moving from North Dakota southerly and westerly into Kansas and Colorado, the storm was reported to be 200 miles wide and moving at 65 miles an hour. Temperatures dropped quickly; echoing other eyewitnesses, Ward’s photograph shows the contrast between the clear sky and the tons of topsoil barreling toward him. “It was as though the sky was divided into two opposite worlds … blue sky, golden sunlight and tranquility; … [and] a menacing curtain of boiling black dust.”¹¹ One boy, playing with a friend in Hays, Kansas, ran for home but couldn’t out-pace the storm—the next day he was found smothered to death by dust. Little wonder that many fled the Dust Bowl. The storms were an implacable enemy that attacked residents’ economic livelihood, health, and safety, and threatened daily life.

然而，有些人留了下来。卡罗琳·亨德森就是大约十个人中在最黑暗的日子里继续留在该地区的七个人之一。¹⁹³⁵年4月，她写了一封题为《以尘土为食》的信，寄给了富兰克林·德拉诺·罗斯福的农业部长亨利·华莱士（资料来源6.2）。在这封长信中，人们可以理解为什么亨德森被誉为向同时代人讲述了“尘暴”居民的经历和勇气的人。亨德森在信中写道，在她作为拓荒者的27年里，这里发生了“奇妙的”变化，“连绵不断的野牛草皮变成了耕地”，杰斐逊式的自耕农生活似乎触手可及。但当干旱和尘埃来袭时，“每日的身体折磨、精神的混乱以及勇气的逐渐消磨”威胁着要摧毁这个梦想。亨德森声称风暴带来的“残酷现实……和剧烈不适”难以描述，但她接着生动地描写了风暴的日常细节。

Yet some stayed. Caroline Henderson was one of the approximately 7 of 10 people who continued to live in the region during its blackest days.¹² In April 1935, she penned a letter entitled “Dust to Eat” and sent it to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Secretary of Agriculture, Henry Wallace (Source 6.2). In the lengthy letter, one sees why Henderson was credited with informing her contemporaries about the Dust Bowl residents’ experiences and courage. Henderson wrote of the “marvelous” changes that had occurred in her 27 years as a homesteader, where “unbroken buffalo grass sod has given way to cultivated fields,” and dreams of a Jeffersonian yeoman farmer’s life seemed within reach. But when drought and dust came, the “daily physical torture, confusion of mind, [and] gradual wearing down of courage” threatened to destroy that dream. Henderson claimed the “bitter reality … and violent discomfort” of the storms were too great to describe, but she goes on to write vividly of their daily details.

亨德森在书中写道，人们怀着希望，付出努力，将大平原改造成农场；她描述了“尘暴”带来的灾难以及政府的应对措施；最后，她以希望作结——正是这份希望，连同她的回忆，让她坚守在自己的农场里。她赞扬联邦政府对该地区的援助，并认为正是这些援助阻止了更多家园和农场的荒废，这一说法后来也得到了历史学家的证实。 ¹³

Henderson wrote of the hope and effort it took to transform the Plains into farms, described the disaster wrought by the Dust Bowl and the government response to that disaster, and ended with hope—a hope that, combined with her memories, held her on her farm. She applauded the federal government’s aid to the region, and credited it with preventing even more abandoned homesteads and farms, a claim later supported by historians.¹³

劳伦斯·斯沃比达留下了他亲身经历“尘暴”的记录（资料6.3和6.4）。1929年，斯沃比达定居在堪萨斯州西南角的米德县（离亨德森不远）。他只待了很短的时间，就经历了这场灾难最严重的时期。他1940年出版的《尘暴中的耕作：堪萨斯州的第一手资料》一书也描述了这场灾难及其造成的破坏。“狂风……砍断了植物……然后连根拔起……它们吹走了表层土壤”，留下的土地“几乎像混凝土一样坚硬……[它]的破坏力超乎我的想象”。斯沃比达着重描述了赖以生存的土地的毁灭。他的描述与其他人的说法一致：绿色植物被彻底摧毁，这片地区正在恢复到早期美国人所称的“大美国沙漠”。

Lawrence Svobida left behind his own account of surviving the Dust Bowl (Sources 6.3 and 6.4). In 1929, Svobida settled in Meade County in the southwest corner of Kansas (not far from Henderson). He would stay just long enough to experience the worst of the disaster. His 1940 book, Farming the Dust Bowl: A First-Hand Account from Kansas, also described the disaster and the damage it wrought. The “gales … chopped off the plants … then proceeded to take the roots out…. They blew away the topsoil,” and left behind a ground that was “almost as hard as concrete…. [It was] a destroying force beyond my wildest imaginings.” Svobida focused on the destruction of the land that was the farmer’s lifeblood. His account reiterated what others said, that green plant life was wiped out and the region was reverting to what earlier Americans had called it: the Great American Desert.

那么，在“尘暴”时期经历苦难究竟是怎样的体验？虽然留守者的故事不如移民的故事那样广为人知，但他们的经历却为我们展现了一段鲜为人知的历史，让我们得以窥见其残酷的过往。记者蒂莫西·伊根在其2006年出版的著作《美国尘暴幸存者》中，将他们的故事称为“最艰难的时期”。该书荣获三项大奖，足以证明这些被忽视的故事所蕴含的力量。

So what was it like to endure the Dust Bowl? Although not as well known as those of the migrants, the stories of those who stayed give us a dramatic view into a past we would otherwise miss. In his 2006 book, subtitled “Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl,” journalist Timothy Egan called their story The Worst Hard Time. The book received three awards, testifying to the power of these overlooked stories.

沙尘暴的成因是什么？我们应该讲述怎样的故事？

What Caused the Dust Bowl? What Story Do We Tell?

然而，关于这场灾难还有其他故事可讲。历史学家讲述故事是为了解释事件发生的原因。原始资料是这些解释的重要证据来源之一，亨德森和斯沃比达的摘录都让我们得以窥见“尘暴”的成因。

Yet there are other stories to be told about this event. Historians tell stories that explain why events happen. Primary sources are one major source of evidence for those explanations, and both the Henderson and Svobida excerpts provide glimpses into the causes of the Dust Bowl.

亨德森对她在平原地区所见的变化赞叹不已，耕地取代了草皮，新式机械“彻底改变了农耕方式”。而斯沃比达则对这些变化持有不同的看法。他认同“动力农业”的重要影响，但称之为“平原的丧钟”，而非福音。他的回忆录中记录了七次歉收，而亨德森的回忆录则是在她耕作成功四年后撰写的。这些因素或许影响了他们对这场变革的不同看法，但两人都承认大平原发生了翻天覆地的变化，而耕作方式的改变是造成这种变化的主要原因。

Henderson celebrated the changes she saw in the Plains, where cultivated fields had defeated grass sod, and new machinery “revolutionized methods of farm work.” Svobida, on the other hand, viewed the same changes differently. He agreed on the important impact of “power farming,” but called it “the death knell of the Plains” rather than a boon. His memoir recounts seven failed crops, whereas Henderson wrote 4 years earlier, following success in farming her land. These factors may have helped to shape their differing views of the transformation, but both stories recognized that massive changes had occurred to the Great Plains, and that farming methods were largely responsible.

这一结论与当时一份关于沙尘暴成因的报告（资料来源 6.5、6.6和6.7 ）的观点一致。1933 年 3月富兰克林·德拉诺·罗斯福总统就职时，沙尘暴正肆虐。1936 年 7 月，总统要求就这场危机的成因提交一份报告，以便采取措施防止再次发生。大平原干旱地区委员会开展了一项“初步研究”，包括查阅现有记录，并对受灾最严重的地区进行了为期两周的考察，考察范围从德克萨斯州狭长地带的阿马里洛一直延伸到北达科他州的拉皮德城。委员会成员包括工程振兴署和负责土地利用、农业和土壤保护的政府机构的领导人。这是一个阵容强大的团队，由农村电气化管理局局长莫里斯·库克担任主席，成员包括安置署署长雷克斯福德·G·塔格韦尔和农业部长亨利·A·华莱士。如此重要的代表团表明，罗斯福认为沙尘暴是一个重要的国家问题——正如他在就职后花费数百万美元用于保护物质资源和援助该地区一样。

This conclusion was shared by a contemporary report into the causes of the Dust Bowl (Sources 6.5, 6.6, and 6.7). When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in March 1933, the Dust Bowl was in full swing. In July 1936, the president asked for a report on the causes of the crisis so that steps could be taken to prevent another. The Great Plains Drought Area Committee conducted a “preliminary study” that included consulting available records and taking a 2-week trip through the most severely affected areas from Amarillo in the Texas Panhandle to Rapid City, North Dakota. The Committee included leaders of the Works Progress Administration and government agencies in charge of land use, agriculture, and soil conservation. It was an impressive group, chaired by Morris Cooke, Administrator of the Rural Electrification Administration, and included Rexford G. Tugwell, Administrator of the Resettlement Agency, and Henry A. Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture. Such an esteemed delegation indicated that Roosevelt saw the Dust Bowl as an important national problem—as did the millions of dollars spent on conservation of physical assets and aid to the region following his inauguration.

1936年8月底，委员会向总统提交了一份“私人机密”报告。报告包含一些重要结论。持续四年的干旱并非“尘暴”灾难的真正罪魁祸首。“过度耕作、过度放牧和不当的耕作方式”才是罪魁祸首。“错误的公共政策”是造成灾难的主要原因，其中包括美国的宅地政策和对错误农业体系的鼓励。（报告开头的两幅地图显示，大平原地区“降雨量极低”且“风速很高”。它们表明，改变的不是气候，而是定居和耕作模式。）总统委员会发现，防止未来灾难——实际上，确保该地区的未来——取决于“耕作方式与自然条件的契合程度”，而几十年来，这些契合程度一直严重失衡。报告明确指出：“尘暴”并非天灾，而是人为灾难。

At the end of August 1936, the committee issued their “personal and confidential” report to the president. It included important conclusions. The 4 years of drought were not the real culprit for the Dust Bowl disaster. “Over cropping, over grazing, and improper farm methods” were to blame. “Mistaken public policies” were largely responsible, including the country’s homesteading policy and the encouragement of a misguided system of agriculture. (Two maps, early in the report, showed the Great Plains as a region of “predominantly low rainfall” and “high wind velocity.” They made the point that it wasn’t the weather that had changed, but rather the patterns of settlement and farming.) The president’s committee found that preventing future disasters—indeed, ensuring the future of the region—would depend “on the degree to which farming practices conform to natural conditions,” and that these had been badly misaligned for decades. The report was clear: The Dust Bowl was not a natural disaster. It was a man-made one.

该报告包含一系列“行动方针”，其核心是确定土地利用区域，这需要政府的参与和监管。某个区域更适合耕种还是放牧？哪些土地需要开垦为草地？哪些草种最有利于土壤保护？水权需要重新审视，地方、州和联邦政府必须收回私有土地，以便规划和控制其使用。农民需要参与土壤保护，社区需要共同努力，建设更可持续的土地利用区域。救济计划以及政府的参与和监管将有助于促进这些进展。报告呼吁制定“协调合作计划”，并指出：“任何有价值的计划的根本目的都不应是使该地区人口减少，而是使其永久适宜居住。任何其他结果都将是国家的失败，其有形和无形的影响将远远超出受影响地区。”

The report included “lines of action” that centered on identifying land use regions, something that would require government involvement and oversight. Was an area more suited to farming or cattle grazing? Which land would need to be reclaimed as grassland? What kinds of grasses would best conserve the soil? Water rights needed to be reconsidered, and local, state, and Federal governments would have to reclaim private lands in order to plan and control their use. Farmers needed to engage in soil conservation and communities needed to work together to build more sustainable land use regions. Relief programs would help promote these advancements, along with government involvement and regulation. The report called for a “coordinated program of cooperation” and stated, “The fundamental purpose of any worthwhile program must be not to depopulate the region but to make it permanently habitable. Any other outcome would be a national failure which would have its effects, tangible and intangible, far beyond the affected area.”

对于“尘暴”的成因，那些将归咎于变幻莫测的天气的解释对这些调查人员来说几乎毫无说服力。委员会的报告有力地论证了这场人为灾难的本质，其原因不仅在于个别定居者的行为，还在于政府政策与当地环境不符。即便如此，这份报告也未必能改变所有人对这场灾难的看法。对许多人来说，一场雨就能让平原重现往日的繁荣。卡罗琳·亨德森感叹，解决干旱问题的“唯一令人满意的办法”“完全超出了人类的控制”，这种感受在当时十分普遍。居民们祈求降雨，以扭转乾坤。（至少有一个社区采取了极端措施，德克萨斯州达尔哈特镇的居民甚至试图用炸药引爆云层，以求降雨。） ¹⁴

Explanations for the Dust Bowl that focused on the vagaries of weather held little sway for these investigators. The committee’s report made a compelling case for a man-made disaster, wrought not only by individual settlers, but also by government policies ill-suited to the region. Even so, the report did not necessarily change everyone’s views of the catastrophe. For many people, rain alone could spell a return of good times to the Plains. Caroline Henderson’s lament that the “one satisfactory solution” to the problem of drought “is beyond all human control” was a common sentiment. Residents prayed for rain to turn their fortunes around. (At least one community took matters into their hands when residents of Dalhart, Texas, tried dynamiting the clouds in order to force rain from them.)¹⁴

这份报告提出了“行动方针”，并呼吁各级政府合作“重组农业耕作方式”，表明解决危机的方案并非只有等待降雨。从这个角度来看，这份报告可以被视为一份充满希望的文件，正如卡罗琳·亨德森在最黑暗的风暴中依然坚守希望一样。通过土地复垦、土壤保护和协调一致的努力，可以更明智地耕作大平原，使其永久适宜居住。否则，将被视为“国家失败”。

With its “lines of action” and call for government at all levels to cooperate on the “reorganization of farming practices,” the report suggested that solutions to the crisis existed beyond waiting for rain. In that respect, it can be read as a hopeful document, just as Caroline Henderson held onto hope through the darkest storms. The Plains could be farmed more wisely and made permanently habitable through reclamation, soil conservation, and coordinated efforts. Anything less would be a “national failure.”

事实上，“尘暴”不仅引起了联邦政府的调查，还设立了国家基金和项目，以减轻居民的困境并支持土地的合理利用。第一个应用于该地区的政府项目是由国会发起的一项饲料和种子贷款基金，在红十字会证明其应对能力不足后，该基金最终由赫伯特·胡佛总统勉强批准。平原地区的选民深知需要更多援助，因此在1932年一反常态地投票支持民主党，帮助罗斯福当选总统。面对重重危机，罗斯福在上任后的头100天内通过了一系列新政项目。虽然这些项目没有直接针对“尘暴”地区，但它们设立了一些机构——其中最著名的是农业调整署（AAA）——负责监督后续的援助工作。当旱情急剧恶化，1934年5月24日席卷美国东海岸的巨大沙尘暴来袭时，全国的援助行动迅速展开。

Indeed, the Dust Bowl had not only attracted investigation by the federal government. National funds and programs were set up to ease the hardship of residents and support wise use of the land. The first government program applied to the region was a feed-and-seed loan fund initiated by Congress and reluctantly approved by President Herbert Hoover after the Red Cross had proven inadequate to the task. Plains voters, who knew that more help was needed, uncharacteristically voted Democrat in 1932, helping to elect Roosevelt. Besieged by crises, Roosevelt passed a flurry of New Deal programs in his first 100 days. While none of them directly targeted the Dust Bowl region, they established agencies—most notably the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA)—that would oversee later efforts. When drought conditions worsened dramatically and the huge dust storm of May 24, 1934, hit the East Coast, national efforts accelerated.

1934年6月，罗斯福总统推动通过了一项5.25亿美元的旱灾救济方案，其中包括向农民和牧民提供紧急贷款、收入补贴、就业计划以及政府收购牲畜等形式的援助。此外，政府还向减产的农民和牧民支付补贴。援助资金还包括用于购置土地、恢复草地、安置居民以及建立防护林带的资金。此类援助持续了整个30年代，但值得注意的是，减产补贴被取消，因为最高法院在1936年裁定其违宪。（此后，政府的重点转向支持种植保水植物和淘汰耗水作物。）

In June 1934, Roosevelt got a $525 million drought relief package passed that included aid to farmers and cattlemen in the form of emergency loans, income supplements, job programs, and government purchase of cattle. Farmers and cattlemen were also paid for reducing production. Included were monies to acquire lands and return them to grass, relocate residents, and create a shelterbelt of trees. Such aid would continue throughout the decade, with the notable exception of payments for production reduction, which were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1936. (Subsequent efforts shifted to support for planting soil-conserving plants and eliminating soil-depleting crops.)

农民们获得了保护土壤、为未来作物种植做准备的援助。正如斯沃比达所描述的那样，条带耕作——即垂直于风向耕种深沟以最大限度减少风力吹袭——是实现这一目标的核心策略。联邦政府用于支持条带耕作的资金通过地方机构直接发放给农民。这意味着即使在最严重的干旱年份，农民们也有工作可做。

Farmers received aid to conserve their soil for future crops. As Svobida described, strip listing—plowing deep furrows perpendicular to the winds to minimize blowing—was a core strategy for doing this. Federal monies to support strip listing passed through local institutions into farmers’ hands. This meant that farmers had work even during the worst drought years.

20世纪30年代，联邦政府对大平原地区的援助持续不断。这些联邦项目主要有两个目的：一是恢复该地区昔日的生产和繁荣水平；二是保护和维护土地。综合来看，在经济大萧条时期，大平原居民获得的人均援助金额甚至超过了全国其他任何群体。

Federal aid to the Plains area persisted throughout the 1930s. Generally, the Federal programs had two main purposes: restoring the area to former levels of production and prosperity, and conserving and protecting the land. In combination, such aid meant that Plains residents received as much or more per capita than any group in the country during the Great Depression.

人类与自然相互作用。沙尘暴是自然灾害，是极端气候条件造成的吗？还是人类活动导致了这场悲剧？政府1936年的报告对沙尘暴成因的描述是否正确？政府的政策和行动在“肮脏的30年代”的形成和发展过程中扮演了什么角色？

People Acted on Nature. Was the Dust Bowl a natural disaster, the result of severe climate conditions? Or did people’s actions cause this tragedy? Was the government’s 1936 report right in its characterization of causes? What role did government policies and actions play in making and managing the “dirty ’30s”?

历史学家对其中一些问题达成共识，但对另一些问题仍存在争议。第一个问题或许最容易回答。哈里·C·麦克迪恩在1986年发表的题为《尘暴史学》的文章中指出，现代历史学家普遍认为“尘暴并非自然灾害，而是人类破坏自然造成的灾难”。 ¹⁵

Historians agree on some of these matters, but debate persists on others. The first question is likely the easiest. In a 1986 article titled “Dust Bowl Historiography,” Harry C. McDean identified a consensus among modern historians “that the Dust Bowl was not a natural disaster; it was a disaster caused by what people did to nature.”¹⁵

人类究竟对自然做了什么？历史学家唐纳德·沃斯特在其1979年出版的获奖著作《尘暴：20世纪30年代的南部平原》（资料来源6.9）中，讲述了这段引人入胜的故事。沃斯特著作的第二部分题为“尘暴前奏”，包含“维系大地的纽带”和“开垦草地”两章。这两个标题概括了过度放牧和大规模耕作如何摧毁了依赖草地的土地。沃斯特写道：“一个古老而独特的生态系统被人类摧毁，失去了抵御自然灾害的缓冲，任由风沙肆虐。这并非自然植被首次大规模死亡，但却是唯一一次因人类蓄意而为之。” ¹⁶

What exactly did people do to nature? Historian Donald Worster told a compelling story of these events in his award-winning 1979 book, Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930s (Source 6.9). Part Two of Worster’s book is entitled “Prelude to Dust” and includes the two chapters “What Holds the Earth Together” and “Sodbusting.” These titles serve as shorthand for the story of how a land dependent on grass was destroyed by overgrazing and extensive farming. Worster wrote, “An old and unique ecological complex has been destroyed by man, leaving him with no buffer against the elements, leaving the land free to blow away. It was not the first time some large part of the natural vegetation had died, but it was the only time that it had happened because of a deliberate strategy carried out by human beings.”¹⁶

沃斯特的“很久很久以前”以地质历史开篇，然后探讨了土壤发育、气候模式以及南部平原的动植物。他提到了史前人类和平原印第安人文化，后者“在各方面都接受了草地至上的原则”，并“展现出一种生态克制的模式”。 ¹⁷ 沃斯特将此与印第安人大多被驱赶到保留地后到来的定居者的态度进行了对比。

Worster’s “once upon a time” began with geologic history, then discussed soil development, climate patterns, and the flora and fauna of the southern Plains. He mentioned prehistoric man and the Plains Indian culture, which accepted “in every way the primacy of the grass” and “showed a pattern of ecological restraint.”¹⁷ Worster contrasted this with the attitudes of settlers who arrived after the Indians had largely been pushed onto reservations.

南北战争结束后，南部平原才开始有人定居。直到19世纪80年代，前来定居的人们大多从事畜牧业。但命运很快发生了变化：1880年，牧牛人的收入大幅增长，屠宰场也随之兴旺起来。价格上涨，但1886年的严冬重创了牲畜，85%的牲畜死亡。^沃斯特称这种命运的逆转预示着未来将发生的事情。19世纪80年代初，平原印第安战争的结束和高于平均水平的降雨量吸引了更多农民来到南部平原，随之而来的是该地区大规模但并不均衡地向农业经济的转型。

The southern Plains were not settled until after the Civil War. Until the 1880s, the settlers who came were mostly involved with raising cattle. Fortunes changed quickly: In 1880 cattlemen earned high slaughterhouse prices, but the harsh winter of 1886 decimated the herds, and 85% perished.¹⁸ Worster called this reversal of fortune a harbinger of things to come. The end of the Plains Indian Wars and above-average rainfall in the early 1880s brought more farmers to the southern Plains, and with them, the region’s large-scale if uneven transformation to a farming economy.

由于农业生产的种种变数，加上贫瘠的土壤、周期性的虫害和恶劣的气候，那些来到这里的人谋生十分艰难。许多人转向种植经济作物，尤其是小麦，开垦更多的草皮来种植更多作物，希望能从中获利。1890年至1910年间，农场数量和耕地面积激增。1890年，堪萨斯州、科罗拉多州和德克萨斯州22个县的5762个农场和牧场平均面积为256英亩。到1910年，农场数量及其相对规模都翻了一番。农场继续扩张，1920年平均面积达到771英亩；到1930年，平均面积达到813英亩。^随着耕地面积的不断扩大，开垦的草皮也越来越多。在丰收的季节，农民们会种植更多作物以获得更多利润。在歉收期间，他们增加了耕种面积以弥补损失。

Those who arrived struggled to make a living, given the vicissitudes of farming, exacerbated by the difficult soils, periodic pest infestations, and hostile climate. Many turned to cash crops, especially wheat, breaking more sod to plant more crops in hopes of turning a profit. Between 1890 and 1910, the number of farms and amount of land under cultivation soared. In 1890, 5,762 farms and ranches in a 22-county area in Kansas, Colorado, and Texas had an average size of 256 acres. By 1910, the number of farms and their relative sizes had doubled. Farms continued to grow and in 1920 averaged 771 acres: by 1930, the average size reached 813 acres.¹⁹ More and more sod was busted as more and more acres were cultivated. During good times, farmers planted additional crops to make more profit. During the bad, they planted more acres to make up their losses.

大平原报告（资料来源 6.5和6.6 ）中的两幅图生动地展现了这些巨大的变化。第一幅图展示了平原最初的地表植被，以草地为主，西部边界和东南部零星分布着一些树木。当时该地区树木和木材稀少，定居者只能用草皮建造房屋。 ²⁰第二幅图则展现了耕地面积的迅速扩张，时间跨度从 1879 年到 1929 年，始于平原大规模农业定居之前，终于灾难性的“沙尘暴”时期。在后 30 年里，耕地面积增长了一倍多，总增幅超过 6000 万英亩！

These tremendous changes are captured by two images from the Great Plains Report (Sources 6.5 and 6.6). The first shows the Plains’ original groundcover, dominated by grasses with trees along the western border and occasionally in the southeastern area. Trees and lumber were scarce in the region, and settlers necessarily built homes from the sod itself.²⁰ The second visual shows the rapidly expanding acres dedicated to farming, spanning the years 1879–1929, starting just before large-scale agricultural settlement of the Plains and ending on the cusp of the disastrous Dust Bowl years. The later 30 years saw cultivation increase more than twofold for an absolute total increase of more than 60 million acres!

创新的农用机械提高了开垦草皮和播种的效率，加速了土地从草原到农田的彻底转变。19世纪末的工业革命不仅发生在制造业，也发生在农业领域。农场规模越来越大，越来越像工厂，机器取代了人力。钢犁更容易地翻耕坚硬的草皮，拖拉机取代了马匹进行耕作，而像联合收割机这样的机器可以同时完成多项工作（例如收割和脱粒小麦）。这些农用设备意味着农民可以更快地开垦和耕种土地，而且大大减少了体力劳动。

Innovative farm machinery made breaking the sod and planting crops more efficient, and accelerated the radical remaking of land from grassland to farm. The Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century happened not only in manufacturing, but in agriculture as well. Farms became larger and more factorylike, while machines replaced human effort. Steel plows broke the tough sod more easily, tractors replaced horses for tilling, and machines like combines could do several things at once (harvest and thresh the wheat). Such farming equipment meant that farmers could break and farm the land more quickly and with much less elbow grease.

作物增多意味着利润增加。有人将20世纪10年代和20年代称为“大开垦期”。第一次世界大战导致俄罗斯小麦生产停滞，国际粮食需求激增，农民们为了满足战后持续的需求，扩大了耕地面积。整个20年代小麦价格基本保持稳定，拖拉机也持续开垦新的田地。1925年至1930年间，农民们“在南部平原526万英亩的土地上开垦了原生植被——这片土地的面积几乎是罗德岛州的七倍。” ²¹即使耕作如此频繁，繁荣也并非唾手可得：随着20世纪20年代的到来，农民们面临着购置新机械的成本、微薄的容错空间以及欧洲竞争的卷土重来等诸多挑战。

More crops meant more profit. Some have called the 1910s and 1920s the “Great Plow-up.” When World War I shut down Russian wheat production and increased international demand for grain, farmers expanded their fields to meet demand that persisted beyond the Great War. Wheat prices stayed mostly stable throughout the 1920s, and the tractors kept plowing new fields. Between 1925 and 1930, farmers “tore up the native vegetation on 5,260,000 acres in the southern plains—an area nearly seven times as large as the state of Rhode Island.”²¹ Even with all this farming, prosperity wasn’t assured: Farmers faced the cost of new machinery, slim margins for error, and the return of European competition as the 1920s roared on.

繁荣时期催生了一种新型的投机者，他们依赖机器，一天就能耕耘数英亩土地，一次就能耕种数百英亩。这些被称为“手提箱农民”的投机者播种后便离开，任凭庄稼能否丰收或歉收。他们并非传统的美国农民，后者在自家农场耕作，与家人共同生活，并以此为生。与长期居住的农民相比，这些佃农和不在本地居住的农民更不关心维持土地的生产力或采用土壤保护措施。在最糟糕的情况下，“手提箱农民”会直接放弃耕种的土地，完全不采取任何保护措施。但事实上，像翻耕作物残茬、轮作、留下裸露的秸秆以稳定土壤——所有这些保护表土的方法——在南部平原的许多农民中并不常见。

Glory times spawned a new kind of opportunist who depended on machines that could plow acres in a day and farm hundreds of acres at a time. Known as “suitcase farmers,” these opportunists would plant a crop and then leave, relying on chance as to whether the crop flourished or withered. These were not the traditional American farmers, working a homestead where their family lived and upon which their livelihood depended. Such tenant and absentee farmers were less likely to care about sustaining the land’s productivity or using soil conservation methods than more permanent residents. In the worst cases, suitcase farmers would simply cut their losses and abandon their tilled fields, applying no conservation methods whatsoever. But, in fact, practices like plowing under crop residue, rotating fields, and leaving bare stalks to stabilize the soil—all of which conserved the topsoil—were not common for many southern Plains farmers.

历史学家意见不一。历史学家们对沙尘暴的成因达成共识，包括破坏草皮、过度耕作、农业机械化以及缺乏土壤保护。但究竟是什么原因促使人们采取这些做法呢？唐纳德·沃斯特认为，正是美国的资本主义文化最终导致了“尘暴”（资料来源 6.8）。“资本主义——无论是工业时代还是前工业时代——对待土地的态度都是帝国主义式的、商业化的；其任何主导价值观都没有教导人们要对环境保持谦逊、敬畏或克制。正是这种文化动力驱使美国人进入草原，并决定了他们利用草原的方式。” ²²

Historians Disagree. Historians agreed on many causes of the dust storms, including sod-busting, over-farming, farm mechanization, and lack of soil conservation. But what causes people to engage in these practices in the first place? Donald Worster argued that it was the American culture of capitalism that ultimately caused the Dust Bowl (Source 6.8). “The attitude of capitalism—industrial and pre-industrial—toward the earth was imperial and commercial; none of its ruling values taught environmental humility, reverence, or restraint. This was the cultural impetus that drove Americans into the grassland and determined the way they would use it.”²²

唐纳德·沃斯特讲述了一个引人入胜的故事，细节丰富，描写生动，论证有力。这是一个历史故事，它运用多种证据解释了“尘暴”的成因。与其他关于“尘暴”的叙述不同，它将“尘暴”的根源归咎于资本主义对利润的无节制追求。

Donald Worster told a compelling story, richly detailed with vivid descriptions and forceful arguments. It is a historical story, one that explains the Dust Bowl using varied kinds of evidence. And it stands in contrast to other accounts of the Dust Bowl by attributing cause to capitalism’s unbridled appetite for profit.

在沃斯特的著作出版两年后，R·道格拉斯·赫特的《尘暴》一书也认同“人类的居住……以及……对新型农业技术的采用”是造成沙尘暴的原因之一（资料来源6.9）。²³然而，赫特并未将资本主义视为主要原因。相反，他讲述了一系列相互关联的因素，平衡了自然因素和人为因素，例如干旱摧毁了原本有助于稳定土壤的作物，以及人类“对土地的技术滥用”。

Published 2 years after Worster’s book, R. Douglas Hurt’s The Dust Bowl agreed that “man’s inhabitation … and … adoption of a new agricultural technology” contributed to the dust storms (Source 6.9).²³ However, Hurt did not identify capitalism as the prime cause. Instead, he told a story of interrelated factors, balancing natural and man-made elements, like the drought that wiped out crops that would have helped stabilize the soil, with humans’ “technological abuse of the land.”

这就是历史故事的本质。历史学家可以审视同样的证据，却得出不同的结论。正如人们可以就同一事件提出不同的问题来阐明不同人物的经历一样，历史学家们也从中挖掘出不同的意义。由于沃斯特和赫特等历史学家的研究，我们对“尘暴”的理解发生了改变。此前，“尘暴”大多被描述为一场自然灾害，讲述的是勇敢的农民们在自然灾害面前坚持不懈，最终为我们所有人拯救了大平原的故事。 ²⁴另一些人则认为恶劣的环境激发了人类的创新和创造力。²⁵但沃斯特和赫特的研究改变了人们对这一事件的看法。他们不再将自然视为作用于勇敢定居者的主要因素，而是认为正是这些定居者及其文化作用于自然。根据这种观点，造成我们所熟知的“尘暴”苦难的，是人类的傲慢，而非大自然的变幻莫测。

Such is the nature of stories in history. Historians can examine the same evidence and find different meanings in it, just as they can ask different questions about the same event to illuminate varied characters’ experiences. Because of the work of historians like Worster and Hurt, how we understand the meaning of the Dust Bowl has changed. Before, the Dust Bowl was mostly characterized as a natural disaster, a story of brave farmers who persisted in the face of natural disaster and saved the Plains for all of us.²⁴ Others saw the hostile environment as a catalyst for human innovation and ingenuity.²⁵ But Worster and Hurt helped change the lens on this event. Rather than casting nature as the primary agent that acted upon the brave settlers, it was those same settlers and their culture who acted upon nature. According to this view, human arrogance, not Mother Nature’s fickleness, caused the suffering we associate with the Dust Bowl.

“尘暴”究竟是大自然暴力肆虐的故事，还是勇敢的拓荒者在逆境中顽强生存的故事？它是人类掠夺土地、工业化失控、不顾可持续性地使用农用机械的故事吗？还是政府政策如何加速、规范或补救这种掠夺的故事？或许，“尘暴”讲述的是这一特殊事件，是众多因素在特定地点、特定时间汇聚，最终酿成一场完美风暴的故事^。26

Was the Dust Bowl a story of nature’s violence unleashed, or one of intrepid settlers who persevered through nature’s hard times? Was it a story of humans exploiting the land, industrialization run amok, and the use of farm machines without regard to sustainability? Or was it the story of how government policies can accelerate exploitation, regulate it, or remedy it? Perhaps the Dust Bowl is the story of the particularity of this one event, how it became a perfect storm of many factors that came together in this particular place at this particular time.²⁶

关于“尘暴”的故事有很多，有些比其他的更可信。有些故事纯属错误，因为它们缺乏证据支持，而且与科学家和历史学家对该事件的认知相悖。另一些故事则基于相同的证据，并且对该事件的事实基本达成共识，但对于造成这些事实的原因却得出了截然不同的结论。正如威廉·克罗农所写，历史学家“将过去的事件构建成因果序列——故事——通过对这些事件进行排序和简化，赋予它们新的意义。” ²⁷解释性的故事需要一个连贯统一的情节，这就要求讲述者在哪些内容重要、哪些内容应该被纳入叙述范围之间做出选择。

There are many stories to be told about the Dust Bowl, some better than others. Some are simply wrong, as they don’t have evidence to support them and are inconsistent with what scientists and historians know about the event. Others alight on the very same evidence and largely agree on the facts of this event, but come to completely different conclusions about what “caused” these facts. Historians, William Cronon wrote, “configure the events of the past into causal sequences—stories—that order and simplify those events to give them new meanings.”²⁷ Stories of explanation require a coherent and unified plot that demands that the teller make choices about what matters and what should be included.

以“尘暴”为例，这个故事讲述了人与自然如何相互影响，以及二者之间密不可分的关系。如果仅仅关注20世纪30年代初的干旱，或者仅仅关注人类对干旱的应对措施，都无法准确描绘出当时平原地区岌岌可危的局势及其成因。人类与赖以生存的星球之间的相互依存关系，引发了我们对自身价值观以及在有限且脆弱的生态系统面前应如何行事的思考。鉴于我们当前面临的挑战——气候变化、人口增长以及对自然资源的持续掠夺——“尘暴”的故事与我们这个时代息息相关。它提醒我们，我们的行为会影响自然界，并决定着自然界能否养活我们不断增长的人口，还是最终沦为人口的牺牲品。

In the case of the Dust Bowl, the story includes how people and nature acted upon one another and are inextricably connected. Focusing solely on the drought of the early 1930s, on the one hand, or on the human response to that drought on the other, gives an inaccurate picture of these precarious times on the Plains and why they occurred. The interdependence between humans and the planet they live on raises questions about what we value and how we should behave in the face of a limited, fragile ecosystem. Given our present challenges—climate change, increasing population, and the ongoing crush for natural resources—the Dust Bowl is very much a story for our times. It reminds us that our actions affect the natural world and can determine whether that world will sustain our growing population or fall victim to it.

为什么要教授有关沙尘暴的历史？

Why Teach About the Dust Bowl?

多元故事及其意义。故事引人入胜，是人类经验中永恒而核心的组成部分。我们讲述故事不仅是为了分享知识，也是为了教导人们分辨是非，启发孩子，并构建社群。故事充满魅力，令人无法抗拒，它们渗透在我们生活的方方面面。

Multiple Stories and Making Sense of Them. Stories captivate. They are an enduring and central piece of the human experience. We tell stories not only to share knowledge, but also to teach the difference between right and wrong, inspire our children, and create community. Engaging and irresistible, stories permeate our lives.

故事是历史的核心。我们用故事来理解过去，历史课上几乎每天都会讲到故事。但是，我们又有多少次引导学生思考某个特定历史事件背后蕴含的多个故事呢？没有任何一个单一的故事能够囊括关于某个历史事件、人物或时代的全部真相。人类的经验太过丰富多样、错综复杂。人们对同一事件的体验各不相同，而动机也可能是隐藏的、多重的。

And they are central to history. We use stories to make sense of the past, and it is a rare day in history class when a story is not shared. But how often do we ask students to consider the multiple stories embedded in a particular historical event? No single story can capture all that is true about a historic event, person, or era. Human experience is too varied and complex. People experience events differently and motivations can be hidden and multiple.

研究“尘暴”历史为我们提供了具体的机会，让我们思考多种不同的叙事方式及其运作机制。许多学生都了解“俄克拉荷马人”（Okies）的故事，但很少有人关注那些留守者的故事。像“当我们只关注‘俄克拉荷马人’时，我们错过了哪些故事？”这样直接的问题，可以帮助学生认识到历史包含着各种各样的视角和经历。

Studying the Dust Bowl offers concrete opportunities to consider multiple stories and how they work. Many students know stories about the Okies, but few have considered the stories of those who stayed behind. A straightforward question like “What stories are we missing when we focus on the Okies?” helps students recognize that history includes a variety of perspectives and experiences.

历史作为解释和框架。为什么会发生“尘暴”？解释过去是历史学家工作的核心，但这对于我们的学生来说未必显而易见。像唐纳德·沃斯特和R·道格拉斯·赫特这样的历史学家，通过叙述来解释他们所研究事件的相互关联的成因。过去，“尘暴”常常被描述为一场自然灾害，仿佛无论人们如何定居和耕作，它都会发生。然而，随着历史学家对定居者的放牧和耕作方式、气候记录、政府政策和立法以及普遍信仰和价值观进行更深入的研究，这种说法已被推翻。学生们可以了解到，历史的作用在于解释，而不仅仅是描述事件。

History as Explanation and Framing. Why did the Dust Bowl happen? Explaining the past is central to the historian’s work, but this is not necessarily obvious to our students. Historians like Donald Worster and R. Douglas Hurt write stories that explain the interrelated causes of the event they investigated. In the past, the Dust Bowl was often depicted as a natural disaster, one that would have happened regardless of the way people settled and farmed the region. However, as historians have looked more closely at the grazing and farming practices of the settlers, at climatic records, government policies and legislation, and common beliefs and values, that story has been overturned. Students can learn that histories explain, rather than merely describe, events.

他们还可以了解美国历史的各个分支领域，以及历史学家如何运用独特的分析框架来研究过去。要解释“尘暴”现象，就需要仔细考察人与自然世界的互动——这正是唐纳德·沃斯特等环境史学家的研究重点。美国历史的各个分支领域（例如环境史、军事史和妇女史）会影响历史学家提出的问题和讲述的故事。

They can also learn about subfields in American history and how historians use distinctive analytic frames to study the past. Explaining the Dust Bowl requires looking closely at interactions between people and their natural world—the focus of environmental historians like Donald Worster. Subfields in American history (e.g., environmental, military, and women’s history) influence the questions historians ask and the stories they tell.

将本研究与科学和英语语言艺术进行跨学科联系。探索“尘暴”时期为整合不同学科、建立跨学科联系提供了契机。学生可以在英语语言艺术课上阅读《愤怒的葡萄》 。在研究那些留在历史课上的人的故事时，我们可以发现虚构作品与历史之间的差异，例如历史叙述和论断需要证据支持。历史侧重于解释，而斯坦贝克则运用故事进行社会批判，两者形成鲜明对比。

Cross-Curricular Connections with Science and English Language Arts. Exploring the Dust Bowl is an opportunity to integrate different subjects and make cross-curricular connections in lessons. Students can read The Grapes of Wrath in English language arts, while studying the stories of those who stayed in their history class. Differences between fiction and history can be highlighted, such as the necessity of evidentiary warrants for historical narratives and claims. History’s focus on explanation can be contrasted with Steinbeck’s use of story for social critique.

这个主题也极具科学研究价值。科学家和科学研究可以携手合作，共同探究沙尘暴的成因以及预防其再次发生的方法。风、气候和土壤结构都是解释沙尘暴成因的关键因素。地理差异、农业科学和耕作技术都影响着沙尘暴的范围和强度。我们可以研究土壤保护方法，并揭示和探究其背后的科学原理。学生们在学习不同学科知识的同时，也能更全面地了解这一事件。

This topic is also ripe for scientific study. Scientists and scientific investigation become allies in figuring out the causes of the Dust Bowl and the methods of preventing another. Wind, climate, and soil patterns all matter in explaining the Dust Bowl. Geographical variations, agricultural science, and farming techniques influenced the extent and ferocity of the dust storms. Soil conservation methods can be examined and the science behind them uncovered and investigated. Students can gain a fuller picture of the event while learning more about different academic disciplines.

促使人们对当代问题进行更深入的研究。我们正处于一场“绿色革命”之中，一场关于我们与地球关系的意识转变。为了赢得选举，政治家们必须在地方和国际环境问题上表明立场，而学区也在采取节能措施，并寻求绿色发展之路。许多学生对环境问题和相关故事很感兴趣，渴望了解更多。本主题及其相关材料正是利用了这种兴趣。作为20世纪30年代一场严重的环境灾难，“沙尘暴”让学生能够从旁观者的角度思考人与环境之间的互动，在这种视角下，情感的淡化反而能带来更深入的分析和对复杂性的包容。这场灾难是否可以避免？应该考虑哪些致灾因素？我们能从这场灾难中吸取哪些教训？

Prompting Further Research into Contemporary Issues. We are in the midst of a “Green Revolution,” a change in consciousness about our relation to the Earth. To get elected, politicians must take stands on local and international environmental questions, while school districts adapt energy-saving measures and look for ways to go green. Many students are captivated by environmental issues and stories and eager to learn more. This topic and the materials associated with it capitalize on such interest. As a severe environmental disaster of the 1930s, the Dust Bowl allows students to contemplate the interaction between people and the environment from a distance, where reduced passions can lead to heightened analysis and tolerance for complexity. Was such a disaster avoidable? What kinds of causal agents should be considered? What lessons can we learn from this event?

这些材料还可以引导学生探究更多当代的荒漠化问题。美国以外的案例研究，例如巴西的森林砍伐或联合国防治荒漠化公约所发起的各项工作，有助于学生认识到环境问题是国际关注的问题，环境灾难不分国界。

These materials can also prompt students to investigate more contemporary desertification problems. Case studies outside the United States, such as deforestation in Brazil or efforts sponsored by the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, help students see that environmental issues are international concerns, and that environmental tragedies do not respect political boundaries.

你会如何使用这些材料？

How Might You Use These Materials?

情景一（1 小时课程）。讲述的是什么故事？在“打开教科书”课程中，^{28 名}教师利用这些资料加深学生对“尘暴”的理解，并帮助他们认识到教科书描述的局限性。

Scenario 1 (1 Hour Lesson). What story is told? In an “Opening Up the Textbook” lesson,²⁸ use these documents to deepen students’ understanding of the Dust Bowl and help them to recognize the limits of the textbook account.

布置课前作业，帮助学生预习。阅读完课本中关于“尘暴”的段落后，学生应该思考：课本是如何描述这一事件的？

Assign homework to prepare for the lesson. After reading the textbook passage that addresses the Dust Bowl, students should consider: What story does the textbook tell of this event?

以这个问题开始本课，并要求学生运用具体事例来阐释和细化教科书中讲述的故事（工具 6.1）。许多教科书都着重描写了因恶劣环境而离开该地区的俄克拉荷马人和其他居民。一些教科书则将“尘暴”描述为一场纯粹由干旱造成的自然灾害。利用合适的文献资料来“打开”这些故事。例如，学生可以阅读并分析文献 6.2、6.3和6.4，以了解更多留守者的经历。关于成因，学生可以阅读并分析一些探讨人类活动对该地区影响的文献（从文献 6.5、6.6、6.7、6.8 和 6.9 中选择）。无论哪种情况，学生都应围绕以下问题展开思考：这些文献资料为教科书的叙述增添了哪些内容？它们如何支持或反驳教科书的叙述？它们讲述了哪些教科书中没有提及的故事？引导全班学生讨论这些问题，鼓励他们用史料中的证据来佐证自己的观点。最后，强调证据在历史研究中的重要作用，它是历史探究中永恒不变的要素。

Begin the lesson with this question and ask students to use specifics to illustrate and detail the story the textbook tells (Tool 6.1). Many textbooks focus on the Okies and others who left the region because of the terrible conditions. Some textbooks represent the Dust Bowl as a purely natural disaster caused by drought. Use the appropriate documents to “open up” these stories. For example, students can read and analyze Sources 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 to find out more about the experiences of those who stayed. Regarding causes, students can read and analyze some of the documents that address the human impact on the region (select from Sources 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8 and 6.9). In either case, students should be guided by the question(s): What do these sources add to the textbook account? How do they support or contest the textbook story? What story do they tell that is not told by the textbook? Lead a whole-class discussion that explores these questions, prompting students to back up assertions with evidence from the sources. Finally, emphasize the role of evidence in history as the enduring constant in historical investigation.

课程结束时，让学生评价“历史有多种故事和视角”这一说法。指导他们运用当天课程中的信息和案例来强化他们的书面评价。

To close the lesson, have students evaluate the statement, “There are multiple stories and perspectives in history.” Direct them to use information and accounts from the day’s lesson to strengthen their written evaluations.

情景二（1-3小时课程）。沙尘暴的成因是什么？利用相关资料引导学生探究这一事件的起因。

Scenario 2 (1–3 Hour Lesson). What caused the Dust Bowl? Use the sources to engage students in investigating the causes of this event.

课程开始时，投影照片（来源 6.1），并请学生注意照片的拍摄日期、内容，思考他们当时看到沙尘暴席卷而来的感受，以及他们对沙尘暴的了解。可以考虑播放伍迪·格思里的歌曲《再见，很高兴认识你》（So Long, It's Been Good to Know Yuh）。（可以在 YouTube 上找到，但请务必选择沙尘暴版本，而不是二战版本。）然后引入本课的核心探究问题：沙尘暴的成因是什么？

Start the lesson by projecting the photo (Source 6.1) and asking students to notice its date, content, how they might have felt seeing the cloud roll toward them, and what they know about the Dust Bowl. Consider playing for students Woody Guthrie’s song, “So Long, It’s Been Good to Know Yuh.” (You can find it on YouTube, but be sure to select the Dust Bowl rather than the World War II version.) Then introduce the lesson’s central inquiry question: What caused the Dust Bowl?

学生提出原因后，将他们的答案写在黑板上。接下来的三轮中，学生两人一组，使用配套的文档和练习题（工具 6.2）来帮助他们整理出一份准确的原因清单。每轮文档整理完毕后，带领全班同学进行讨论。讨论环节中，您可以重温引导性问题，并引导学生用文献中的证据来论证他们的答案。利用学生在查阅文献过程中提出的问题，来强调历史挖掘如何能够引出更多的问题。

As students generate causes, list their answers on the blackboard. In three successive rounds, pairs of students then work with document sets and accompanying worksheets (Tool 6.2) to help them craft an accurate list of causes. After each round of documents, lead a whole-class discussion where you revisit the guiding question and prompt students to defend their answers with evidence from the documents. Use questions that students have generated from working with the documents to highlight how historical digging can lead to more questions.

第一轮，学生们研读亨德森和斯沃比达的记述（资料6.2、6.3和6.4 ）。第二轮，他们使用1936年大平原干旱地区委员会报告的节选（资料6.5、6.6和6.7 ）。第三轮，学生们参考一些解释性的二手资料（资料6.8和6.9）。最后，学生们需要回答“是什么导致了沙尘暴？”这个问题。他们的回答应该包含证据，特别是来自文献的直接引语和具体细节，以支持他们的论点。

In the first round, students work with the Henderson and Svobida accounts (Sources 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4). In the second, they use excerpts from the 1936 Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee (Sources 6.5, 6.6, and 6.7). In the third round students consider the interpretive secondary accounts (Sources 6.8 and 6.9). Finally, students write an answer to the question, “What caused the Dust Bowl?” Their responses should include evidence, especially direct quotes and specifics from the documents, to support their argument.

情景三（2小时课程）：讲述的是谁的故事？利用现有材料整合英语语言艺术和历史课程，并向学生讲授两者之间的重要区别。（此情景最好与英语语言艺术教师合作完成。）

Scenario 3 (2 Hour Lesson). Whose story is told? Use the materials to integrate English language arts and history curricula and teach students important differences between the two. (This scenario is best executed in collaboration with an English language arts colleague.)

课前，请学生阅读约翰·斯坦贝克的小说《愤怒的葡萄》，至少读到第十章，也就是乔德一家离开农场的那一章。课前，提出问题：斯坦贝克的故事讲述的是谁的故事？然后分发斯沃比达和亨德森的文献（资料6.2、6.3和6.4 ），这些文献是由20世纪30年代留在农场的人们撰写的。询问学生这些记录讲述的是谁的故事。这些记录对你们理解“尘暴”有何帮助？

Before the lesson, have students read John Steinbeck’s novel The Grapes of Wrath, up to at least Chapter 10 where the Joads leave their farm. Start the lesson with the question: Whose story is being told in Steinbeck’s tale? Then pass out the Svobida and Henderson documents (Sources 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4), written by people who stayed on their homesteads during the 1930s. Ask students whose story is told by these accounts. What do these accounts add to your understanding of the Dust Bowl?

将资料 6.2、6.3和6.4确定为研究“尘暴”的主要资料。指出历史学家通过分析主要资料来讲述过去的故事。与学生分享其中一位历史学家的记述（资料 6.8或6.9）。请他们找出摘录中的论点和故事。提问：这位历史学家运用了哪些方法来撰写历史故事？在他们确定了必要的证据和资料来源后，询问斯坦贝克在创作“尘暴”故事时是否也需要这些。用这个例子来区分虚构作品和历史。你也可以将斯坦贝克的小说视为主要资料，因为它提供了对事件和时代背景的深刻见解，但要重申虚构作品和历史遵循不同的规则。

Identify Sources 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4 as primary sources for studying the Dust Bowl. Make the point that historians analyze primary sources to tell stories about the past. Share with them one of the historian accounts (Source 6.8 or 6.9). Ask them to identify the argument and story in the excerpt. Ask: What did this historian use in order to write a historical story? After they identify evidence and sources as necessary, ask whether Steinbeck needed these things to write his story of the Dust Bowl. Use this example to distinguish between fiction and history. You may also consider Steinbeck’s novel as a primary source that offers insight into the events and the context of the time, but reiterate the point that fiction and history do not follow the same rules.

通过要求学生写1-3段文字来评估他们是否同意以下观点：“使用虚构和非虚构资料可以帮助我们理解过去。”学生应该表明自己的立场，然后用至少两个具体的例子来支持自己的观点。

Assess students by asking them to write 1–3 paragraphs agreeing or disagreeing with the following statement: “Using both fictional and non-fictional sources can help us understand the past.” Students should take a stance and then explain it using at least two specific supporting examples.

情景 4（2 小时课程）。独立研究的跳板：使用这些材料引导学生运用指导性研究来完善故事（参见工具 6.3）。

Scenario 4 (2 Hour Lesson). Springboard to independent research: Use these materials to propel students toward using guided research to elaborate a story (see Tool 6.3).

利用之前的某个情境引入“多故事”的概念。在学生识别出至少两个不同的故事后，让他们选择一个进行深入学习。首先，让学生写一段话，讲述他们所了解的故事，并说明他们想要了解更多的内容。然后，引导他们访问相关资源和网络档案，以便他们了解更多相关主题（如需入门，请参阅“推荐资源”部分）。

Use one of the previous scenarios to introduce the idea of multiple stories. After students recognize at least two alternative stories, have them choose one to learn more about. First, have students write a paragraph telling the story as they know it and identifying what they would like to learn more about. Then direct them to resources and Web-based archives where they can learn more about these topics (in order to get started, see the Suggested Resources section).

要求学生找到至少三个能补充他们正在调查的故事的资料来源。学生应分析每个资料来源，并确定其产生的时间、地点和原因；它是二手资料还是一手资料；以及它如何支持、反驳或扩展他们阅读过的其他资料。^学生应记录每个资料来源的来源以及分析过程中产生的任何问题。最后，让他们用几个段落复述故事，使用在调查过程中发现的信息、引语和数据，并注明具体佐证的资料来源。

Ask students to find at least three sources that add to the story they are investigating. Students should analyze each source and identify when, where, and why it was produced; whether it is a secondary or primary source; and how it supports, contests, or extends other sources they have read.²⁹ Students should record where they found each source and any questions that arise from their analyses. Finally, have them retell the story in several paragraphs using information, quotes, and data uncovered during their investigation and citing the sources for that specific supporting evidence.

资源和工具

Sources and Tools

来源：JH Ward，《沙尘暴。科罗拉多州。照片。1935年。来自美国国会图书馆，《从大萧条到二战的美国：FSA-OWI照片集，1935-1945》，http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/fsaall:@field(NUMBER+@band(fsa+8b26995)

Source: J. H. Ward, Dust storm. Colorado. Photograph. 1935. From Library of Congress, America from the Great Depression to World War II: Photographs from the FSA-OWI, 1935–1945, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/fsaall:@field(NUMBER+@band(fsa+8b26995)

 

 

来源6.2：亨德森信函（修改版）

SOURCE 6.2: HENDERSON LETTER (MODIFIED)

来源：摘自卡罗琳·亨德森于 1935 年 7 月 26 日从俄克拉荷马州狭长地带寄给美国农业部长亨利·A·华莱士的信件。载于阿尔文·O·特纳（编），《尘暴来信》（诺曼：俄克拉荷马大学出版社，2001 年），第 140-142 页；第 146-147 页。

Source: Excerpts from Caroline Henderson’s letter to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Henry A. Wallace, sent July 26, 1935, from the Oklahoma Panhandle. In Alvin O. Turner (Ed.), Letters from the Dust Bowl (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001), 140–142; 146–147.

来源6.3：S VOBIDA账户（修改版）

SOURCE 6.3: SVOBIDA ACCOUNT (MODIFIED)

来源：摘自劳伦斯·斯沃比达 (Lawrence Svobida) 的《尘暴中的耕作：来自堪萨斯的第一手资料》，该书于 1940 年首次出版（劳伦斯：堪萨斯大学出版社，1986 年），第 59 页。

Source: Excerpt from Lawrence Svobida, Farming the Dust Bowl: A First-Hand Account from Kansas, first published in 1940 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1986), 59.

来源6.4：自然之自由（修改版）

SOURCE 6.4: SVOBIDA ON NATURE (MODIFIED)

来源：摘自劳伦斯·斯沃比达 (Lawrence Svobida) 的《尘暴中的耕作：堪萨斯州的第一手资料》，该书于 1940 年首次出版（劳伦斯：堪萨斯大学出版社，1986 年），第 36 页。

Source: Excerpt from Lawrence Svobida, Farming the Dust Bowl: A First-Hand Account from Kansas, first published in 1940 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1986), 36.

来源6.5：地图

SOURCE 6.5: MAP

资料来源：《大平原干旱地区委员会报告》，该报告于1936年8月27日呈递给罗斯福总统，由包括农业部和土壤保持局在内的八个联邦机构的领导人签署。莫里斯·库克等人，《大平原干旱地区委员会报告》（纽约州海德公园：富兰克林·D·罗斯福图书馆，1936年）。可访问http://newdeal.feri.org/hopkins/hop27.htm查阅。

Source: Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee, sent to President Roosevelt on August 27, 1936, signed by leaders of eight Federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service. Morris Cooke et al., Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee (Hyde Park, NY: Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, 1936). Available at http://newdeal.feri.org/hopkins/hop27.htm

 

 

资料来源：《大平原干旱地区委员会报告》，该报告于1936年8月27日呈递给罗斯福总统，由包括农业部和土壤保持局在内的八个联邦机构的领导人签署。莫里斯·库克等人，《大平原干旱地区委员会报告》（纽约州海德公园：富兰克林·D·罗斯福图书馆，1936年）。可访问http://newdeal.feri.org/hopkins/hop27.htm查阅。

Source: Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee, sent to President Roosevelt on August 27, 1936, signed by leaders of eight Federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service. Morris Cooke et al., Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee (Hyde Park, NY: Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, 1936). Available at http://newdeal.feri.org/hopkins/hop27.htm

 

 

来源6.7：委员会报告（修改版）

SOURCE 6.7: COMMITTEE REPORT (MODIFIED)

资料来源：摘自1936年8月27日呈递给罗斯福总统的《大平原干旱地区委员会报告》，该报告由包括农业部和土壤保持局在内的八个联邦机构的领导人签署（斜体字为原文所有）。莫里斯·库克等人，《大平原干旱地区委员会报告》（纽约州海德公园：富兰克林·D·罗斯福图书馆，1936年）。可访问http://newdeal.feri.org/hopkins/hop27.htm

Source: Excerpts from Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee, sent to President Roosevelt on August 27, 1936, signed by leaders of eight Federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture and Soil Conservation Service (italics added). Morris Cooke et al., Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee (Hyde Park, NY: Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, 1936). Available at http://newdeal.feri.org/hopkins/hop27.htm

资料来源6.8：历史学家解释A（修改版）

SOURCE 6.8: HISTORIAN EXPLANATION A (MODIFIED)

来源：唐纳德·沃斯特（1979 年），《尘暴：20 世纪 30 年代的南方平原》。纽约：牛津大学出版社，第 4-5 页（斜体字为后加）。

Source: Donald Worster (1979), Dust Bowl: The Southern Plain in the 1930s. New York: Oxford University Press, 4–5 (italics added).

来源6.9：历史学家解释B（修改版）

SOURCE 6.9: HISTORIAN EXPLANATION B (MODIFIED)

来源：R. Douglas Hurt (1981)，《尘暴：农业和社会史》（芝加哥：Nelson-Hall），第 15、30 页（斜体字为后加）。

Source: R. Douglas Hurt (1981), The Dust Bowl: An Agricultural and Social History (Chicago: Nelson-Hall), 15, 30 (italics added).

工具6.1 ：打开教科书​​​

TOOL 6.1: OPENING UP THE TEXTBOOK

---

关于沙尘暴，人们讲述了怎样的故事？

What story is told about the Dust Bowl?

1. 这本教科书的故事与你读过的其他资料有何异同？
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. How is the textbook’s story similar to and different from one of the other sources you read?
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. 请用一段话，结合你今天读到的内容，评价以下陈述：“历史中有多种故事和视角。”
4. In a paragraph, evaluate the following statement using evidence from what you have read today: “There are multiple stories and perspectives in history.”

工具6.2 ：沙尘暴的成因是什么？​​

TOOL 6.2: WHAT CAUSED THE DUST BOWL?

---

假设：

Hypothesis:

工具6.3：研究跳板

TOOL 6.3: SPRINGBOARD TO RESEARCH

---

1. 列举你读过的关于沙尘暴的不同故事。
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. List different stories about the Dust Bowl that you have read.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. a. 选择一个你想了解更多的故事，并列在这里。b
   
   
   
   . 写一段简短的文字概括这个故事。c
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   . 写下你对这个故事的2-3个疑问。（想想你还想知道什么，以及你有哪些不明白的地方。）
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
4. a. Pick one story you would like to know more about and list it here.
   
   
   
   b. Write a short paragraph summarizing this story.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   c. Write 2–3 questions that you have about this story. (Think about what else you want to know and what you don’t understand.)
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
5. 找到三个能帮助你了解更多故事背景的资料来源（文件、照片、视频）。请分别填写下表。
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
6. Find three sources (documents, photos, video) that help you learn more about the story. Fill out the following chart for each.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
7. 用 1-3 段话复述这个故事。
   1. 请列出您在调查过程中发现的信息、引语和数据。
   2. 请注明信息/数据/引文的来源。在句末用括号注明来源的作者和日期，格式如下：（作者，日期）。
8. Retell the story in 1–3 paragraphs.
   1. Include information, quotes, and data that you found in your investigations.
   2. Cite your sources for that information/data/quotes. Include the author and date of the source in parentheses at the end of the sentence so that it looks like this: (author, date).

推荐资源

Suggested Resources

http://memory.loc.gov/fsowhome.html

http://memory.loc.gov/fsowhome.html

《从大萧条到二战时期的美国：农业安全管理局-战时信息办公室照片集，1935-1945》是一部收录了大量来自农业安全管理局-战时信息办公室照片的合集。该合集是美国国会图书馆“美国记忆”网站的一部分，可按主题、创作者和地点进行检索。

America from the Great Depression to World War II: Photographs from the FSA-OWI, 1935–1945 is an extensive collection of photos from the Farm Security Administration—Office of War Information. The collection is part of the Library of Congress’s American Memory site and can be searched by subject, creator, and location.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/award97/ndfahtml/hult_sod.html

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/award97/ndfahtml/hult_sod.html

利用此网站帮助学生了解草皮房的生活方式与他们自己的生活方式有何不同。该网站是弗雷德·赫尔斯特兰德“历史图片集”的一部分，该系列记录了北部平原的定居历史。此资源是对草皮房的绝佳介绍，包含照片和文字说明。

Use this site to help students understand how life in a sod house differs from their own. Part of the Fred Hulstrand: History in Pictures collection that documents the settling of the northern Plains, this resource is a fine introduction to sod houses and includes photographs and descriptions.

http://www.kansashistory.us/dustbowl.html

http://www.kansashistory.us/dustbowl.html

《尘暴历史》收录了一系列精心挑选的第一手和第二手资料，包括照片、数据图表和歌曲。这些资料可用于了解背景知识或进行更深入的研究。

Dust Bowl History includes a well-chosen collection of primary and secondary sources, including photographs, data charts, and songs. These can be used for background knowledge or for further investigation.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/introduction/dustbowl-introduction/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/introduction/dustbowl-introduction/

该网站由 PBS 系列节目《美国体验》创建，包含一段关于“尘暴”的短视频、一个有用的时间轴、课程计划以及文章和访谈（包括对唐纳德·沃斯特的访谈）。

Created by the PBS series American Experience, this site includes a short video about the Dust Bowl and a helpful timeline, lesson plan, and essays and interviews (including one with Donald Worster).

http://www.williamcronon.net/researching/index.htm

http://www.williamcronon.net/researching/index.htm

这是一份由历史学家威廉·克罗农及其学生编写的在线历史研究入门指南。指南中包含解读资料的方法，这些资料对于环境史（包括景观史）的研究尤为重要。您还可以访问克罗农的个人主页，获取更多关于环境史的资源。

A web-based primer on historical research compiled and produced by historian William Cronon and his students. Includes ways to read sources particularly important for doing environmental history, including landscapes. Also see Cronon’s home page for more resources regarding environmental history.

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe20s/machines_01.htm

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe20s/machines_01.htm

对于不了解农业的人来说，这个网站很有帮助，它简要介绍了各种农用机械，以及它们在20世纪20年代内布拉斯加州的发展演变。解释通俗易懂，并配有照片和原始资料。

Helpful for the farming-ignorant, this site includes brief explanations of different farm machines and how they changed over time in 1920s Nebraska. Explanations are easy to follow and accompanied by photographs and primary accounts.

http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/units/eight/landscape/08_landscape7.pdf

http://worldhistoryforusall.sdsu.edu/units/eight/landscape/08_landscape7.pdf

本教学单元探讨了20世纪上半叶的环境变化问题。该单元由“世界历史人人共享”（World History for Us All）网站制作，该网站是圣地亚哥州立大学和国家学校历史中心的一个项目。本单元提供了相关材料和背景知识，帮助学生从国际视角理解这些变化，并收录了有关人口增长、移民以及拖拉机和化石燃料日益普及的资料。

This teaching unit explores issues of environmental change in the first half of the 20th century. Produced by the World History for Us All website, a project of San Diego State University and the National Center for History in the Schools, it provides materials and background knowledge for bringing an international perspective to these changes, and includes sources that address population growth, migration, and the growing use of tractors and fossil fuel.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=dust-bowl-cause.htm&url=http://www.ciesin.org/docs/002-193/002-193.html

http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=dust-bowl-cause.htm&url=http://www.ciesin.org/docs/002-193/002-193.html

这篇写于1986年的文章，从当代和国际视角探讨了荒漠化问题。^文章内容包括荒漠化的定义、历史概述以及世界各地地表植被退化和消失的数据。

This article, written in 1986, offers a contemporary and international lens on desertification.³⁰ It includes definitions, a historical overview, and data on the degradation and disappearance of ground cover for regions around the world.

http://newdeal.feri.org/

http://newdeal.feri.org/

由富兰克林和埃莉诺·罗斯福研究所赞助的“新政网络”提供了丰富的历史资料和其他教学资源，有助于深入讲解大萧条和新政。您可以在这里找到1936年大平原干旱地区委员会报告的更完整版本。

The New Deal Network, sponsored by the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute, offers a good collection of historical sources and other teaching resources to help flesh out lessons on the Great Depression and New Deal. Here you can find a more complete version of the 1936 Report of the Great Plains Drought Area Committee.